CSF publication - Civil Society Forum - CEE Trust

Anniversaries are not about the past but about the future!what?The aim of the Civil Society Forum was to explore how the landscape of CEE civil society looks 20 year after thefall of the Berlin Wall. It brought about a two-year process of reflection and deliberation with diverse people frombroad backgrounds, from across the CEE and beyond. In the context of the Trust for Civil Society in Central andEastern Europe having less than five years left of operations, the intension was to review some of the conceptsand assumptions developed in the sector over the last two decades and explore what new aspects to take intoaccount for doing our work in the best way in the high-speed world of 2010. We certainly were not disapointed byall the interesting threads found along the way, and this document is an attempt to gather as many as possible ofthe ideas, opinions and reflections expressed - hopefully to inspire you as well!for whom?Our definition of civil society has always been inclusive, incorporating multiple actors - in fact many more thanthose we traditionally work with or those who gathered for the Civil Society Forum event in Bratislava in Septemberof 2009. By a couple of additional initiatives such as the Social Innovation Camp CEE, the Contest for young activistsand journalists and the Street Poll, we attempted to bring in a broader sample of opinions regarding civil society,and no matter whether you are working for a civil society organization or not, we hope you find the texts useful.what are we trying to say?In the below document we start off by presenting our concluding analysis of the Forum, coming from our positionas a private philanthropic donor aiming to support civil society. These frank observations and conclusions reflect oursubjective understanding and interpretation of the forum discussions and will guide our future work.We believe that in our multifaceted world there is no single answer, and the rest of this publication contains the rawmaterial without applying any of our filters or interpretations. There are no summaries, no blueprints, no to-do-listsand no attempts at sweeping conclusions, but solely the original writing and transcribed discourse from the manyenthusiastic and intelligent people that participated in the Civil Society Forum over the past two years.Please note: all text have been edited to be suitable for reading, and the use of English corrected for the purposeof understanding. Bookmarks, keywords in the margins and boxes with quotes have been selected and added bythe editing team. These do not reflect the full meaning of the text but exists only to facilitate easy browsing.practical tips for readingThe collection of material is vast, therefore we have put a couple of functions in place to ease the reading of thisdocument. In addition to reading it from A-Z , pdf has good tools for navigation and we have tried to add someways to more easily navigate the text:• The keywords in the margins of transcripts and quote boxes through-out the articles may be of use to scan thetext for interesting paragraphs• In the left hand margin of the pdf window there is a bookmark panel with 2 icons, one for page thumbnails andone for bookmarks. Some topical headings has been added so you can reach examples of the discussion fromvarious parts of the document by clicking on a link, e.g. what is civil society, working with business, communcationetc. These bookmarks are not all covering - however hopefully they may give a glance to what is there.• The Table of Content can be found on p. 3-4 as well as appears as the first bookmark.• In PDF you may also easily jump to a specific page by inserting a number in the page box, or you can searchfor keywords of your own choice through the find function (if these features not visible on the top of your document,make sure to show or reset “toolbars”, which can be find in the “view” menu) .More pictures, clips and information are available on the CSF website. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitateto contact us at trust@ceetrust.org.You are invited to re-use this material, as this work is published under a creative commons attributation, non commerciallicense. For more information visit the Creative Commons website.We wish you a most pleasant read!

To start withAbout the Civil Society Forum - what we heard and what we think 5Forum discussions - live from BratislavaWho represents the citizen in CEE in 2009? 9Harnessed and unharnessed energies - time for a new approach to NGOs? 26What is the agenda after EU accession and what may be the response to the crisis? 33Inspiring active citizens 36Citizens and Politics 50NGOs and the state - a relationship of clients, partners or opponents 66Keeping up with the changing world - how can we guarantee the viability of civil society? 79Civil society, old media, and cyberspace - too much talk, but no communication? 85Business and civil society - growing divide or getting closer? 97What about the future? 110What about art and civil society 121Two decades of Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe 123Some facts and figures on...Civic Engagement and Perceptions in CEE 124Voices from...the practitioners and activists: FocusGroups 129the streets: StreetPoll 161the young: extracts from essays of the Civil Society Forum contest 177the online community - Social Innovation Camp and participants report 1853

Pre-forum Articles about CEE Civil Society - various perspectives and trendsWhat ails civil society? By Agnieszka Graff 189Being a citizen - not a profession but a commitment By Anna Krasteva 195Civil society in Poland - some remarks by a historian of ideas By Andrzej Waskiewicz 200A hitchhiker’s guide to philanthropy By Chris Worman 205Concern + trust = hope By Codru Vrabie 214Notes on the state of civil society in Central and Eastern Europe By Darina Malova 220Crisis accumulation and signs of revitalization in Hungary By Ferenc Miszlivetz 224Civil Society 2.0? Civic organizations post EU accession By Ioana Avadani 231Time to reexamine civil society and reach out to the ways of the young By Istvan Rev 235The current quandaries of NGOs in Central and Eastern Europe By Jiri Kopal 240From democracy to kleptocracy and back? By Juraj Mesik 247“The sleeping giant” - the church’s relationship with civil society By Maria Rogaczewska 253Divided demands By Milla Mineva 261The policy of small steps - experiencing local development By Monika Balint 266Redefining NGOs By Primoz Sporar 274Civil Society - always a good thing? By Rafal Pankowski 2782 voices from the sidelines By Rayna Gavrilova and Milena Leneva 282E-participation - a new sphere of NGO activity? By Simon Matej Delkorda 287Hot art as activism against Poland’s “moral majority” By Tomek Kitlinski 292Give a Book for Christmas a short story by Georgi Gospodinov 303Bauman – End of the Orgy 304Thanksto all the inspiring people that contributed to the Civil Society Forum 3144

About the Civil Society Forum - what we heard and what we thinkAbout the Civil Society Forum - what we heard and what we thinkConclusions and reflections from the CEE TrustTwo opposing assessments permeate all discussions about civil society in Central and EasternEurope. The first one sees thriving civil societies around, represented by myriads of organizationsand movements that fulfill diverse and important social functions. The secondone holds that there is no civil society to speak of; it is weak; it has lost its soul, its energy, itsleading position and has turned into a ‘bunch of NGOs’.We believe that the rationales behind these perceptions grow out of the fundamental changein the understanding of the relationship of civil society to “good” society that has happenedover the last 20 years. There is prevalent, commonsensical and, basically, correct intuition thatcivil society exists to correct the failures of the state to deliver the public good and to protectthis good against the predatory attacks of business. What has become obsolete however isthe idea that there is an self-evident and undisputable public good, defended by the civilsociety.This vision feeds assumptions with wide currency such as the one that perceives civil societyas some sort of vigilante, ready to stand up and address any infringement of the public good,while we, average citizens, watch… Another one implies that if one is working for commonbenefit (and these are, in first place, the non-profit organizations), s/he does not have to convincethe public in its obvious usefulness. Leaning too heavily on such empty concepts underminesthe most precious asset, the trust in civil society organization.Back in the 1990ies, the public agenda - social and economic - was essentially a matter ofconsensus in post-communist European countries: liberal democracy (free elections, humanrights, rule of law) and market economy. Citizens, reformist political parties, foreign donorsand international institutions shared this understanding and focused their efforts to make ithappen. Local energies and activists received generous support in terms of money and prepackagedsolutions: norms, practices, institutions, experts and consultants, intended to speedup the process of transition. The change happened in an amazingly short term. The non-profitnon-governmental organizations were among the main drivers of change in this period ofshaken order, delivering in the fields of rule of law, protection of human rights, restoration ofcommunity activism, reform of public policies, revival of the drive for philanthropy, etc. etc.The Trust for Civil Society was created at the end of this period precisely with the intention tohelp preserve this wonderful asset.In 2010 it is quite clear that the consensus what is good for our societies and how to bring itabout, belongs to the past. Few are those who challenge seriously the democratic principlesand institutions as social framework but the political agenda - the policy to translate it intolivable environment - has become ‘normal’, that is - a contested field. Moreover, the first decadeof the 21st century signaled visible change in the political systems: the weakening andblurring of big ideologies (liberalism, socialism, conservatism), which used to offer the wholepackage (ideology cum policy). What some call the consumer-driven political behavior (ifI am not happy with my political party I do not press it to change, I change my political allegiance)is taking over the old party loyalties. The growing appeal of opportunistic, publicopiniondriven, charismatic, i.e. populist leaders is the visible manifestation of this trend.We believe that civil society is self organized engagement for something larger than yourselfand your direct family. But there is no common denominator. Today we have to face reality:5

About the Civil Society Forum - what we heard and what we thinkthe public good is different things to different people, groups, strata, even nations. Civil societyis mobilizations around different, sometimes conflicting agendas: human rights watchdogs arecertainly working and fighting for the public good but so are the association of farmers, whobelieve that the wealth of the nations depends on their survival and prosperity. Euroenthusiastsbelieve that unified Europe is the best prospect for bright future but Euroeskeptics, patriotic,nationalist or, often - alas - openly xenophobic groups preach that the nation is the naturalcondition for good life. Activists attack shelters to free mistreated animals but they meet thereconcerned mothers-against-vicious stray dogs. Volunteers deliver food to the poor and thehomeless but libertarian groups insist that if the state is appropriating 45% of the national revenuesit should put in place a system to provide for the weak.The public good is becoming contested arena and civil society is the broad term to describethese different agendas. This is not a level playing field, however, quite the opposite: powerfulinterests from different quarters outside of the civil society create substantial inequalities interms of material, social, and symbolic capital: money, constituencies, and appeal. They investa lot for or against a certain agenda and the complaint “there is no civil society” or “civil societyis weak” is often our frustration that the issues we believe important do not have a strongvoice or organizational framework to promote it.With the framework of liberal democracy in place, the decision how our societies could begood societies for all has gradually become a matter of deliberation and competition aboutpolicies. Therefore, we agree with many activists who believe that civil society organizationsshould become political. That does not imply, of course, to become partisan or to align withpolitical parties for good. Being political means having position, stand for it and use differenttools to make it real: it could mean push for change but, also, fight for preservation. The mostdirect path is to go straight to the decision-making bodies (local, regional, national, European)and it may happen in coalition or confrontation with political parties. But not in misplaced neutrality.The civil society has the formidable potential to mobilize its own constituencies outsideof the established political ecosystem. This act, let’s face it, is no less political.Another phenomenon we witness in many CEE countries and beyond is the unpleasant connotation,related to the term NGO. It translates the vague feeling that something fake wassubstitutes for something real. This is a very damaging misconception. Non-governmental organizations(or non-profit organizations as is their official legal name in many countries), are oneof the basic forms of existence of civil society, crucial for any attempt to bring change. Thecriticism is deserved, to some extent. The sprouting of hundreds of organizations which recycleprojects with nice rhetoric and negligible social effect has eroded the public trust. However,most critics of the NGOs do work with or for non-profit organizations from time to time. To borrowfrom Henry Kissinger, when someone needs to call the civil society, s/he dials the phonenumber of an “NGO”.This reading of the social and political field entails, in our opinion, a few clear challenges for theactive self-organized citizens, registered or not. We have tried to distill a couple of them outof the dozens of opinions, ideas, critiques and suggestions that we read and heard during theCivil Society Forum, and, as a matter of fact, in the course of our daily work.Nothing is more important for the civil society entities of any persuasion and shape than a clearcause. If an organization, network or movement cannot state in one sentence what they standfor, there is something inherently wrong. Many organizations have developed carefully wordedmission statements, areas of engagement and descriptions of what they do without an answerwhat do they exist for.6

About the Civil Society Forum - what we heard and what we thinkIt is time to stop overestimating the effect of rational arguments and underestimating emotions.Civil society organizations are made of people, work for people and need support frompeople. Rational arguments might convince but will not motivate (enough). If organizationsand movements want and need real supporters, followers, or communities, they should remindthemselves that people are driven by emotions: love, compassion, joy, belonging, senseof personal fulfillment or by frustration, pity, anger, and, unfortunately greed and envy. Manygood organizations have forgotten this simple truth and worry that people and media are notinterested in their message(s). Understanding and endorsing is one thing; committing for thelong haul - quite different. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a strong argument touse in advocacy efforts; but if you wish to win the competition for the hearts and purses of thecitizens on the social battlefield of ideas - you need more.Any cause needs support - people (numbers are political, said Bob Geldof), endorsement byinstitutions, expertise, money. These days, one needs to work much harder for this support.When money was coming from international donors, it was easy because organizations wereknocking on open doors. All they needed was an intelligently written request and a few goodpeople. This situation is changing albeit slowly. There is enough money coming from the governmentsand the donors to allow hundreds of organizations to do their needed work. Theproject culture is here to stay because this is the way institutions work. The stratum of professional,non-profit, non-governmental intermediaries will grow and evolve as a third sector withwell-defined social functions along the lines of the widely spread European model of corporaterepresentation and contractual relationships. Some claim that this is the future of civil societyin Europe.We beg to differ: there is more to civil society than representation of organized interests. Themotivation to contribute to the betterment of human condition beyond the interest of thegroup will remain, in our understanding, the hallmark of those who claim to belong to the civilsociety. It might go against the grain of popular opinion, established policy or national consensus.For those who stand for this ‘minority’ agenda, our message is be brave; there are supportersout there.The time has come for organized citizens with a cause to go out and gather other types of support,outside of the public treasury: from businesses - not because the group or organization isgood per se but because together we can achieve more than we can do in isolation - both forour cause and for your business and; as value added – it will make you feel good.• from the growing middle class - it has achieved a certain living standard and it is time tostart “helping the bourgeois become citizens” as one Forum participant put it.• from people, door to door, office to office, convincing them that if they support a causethey can turn their outrage or longing into something effective. The 1% legislation is a fantasticopportunity in CEE that other regions could only dream of.Lastly, be sharp. It is definitely time to let go the idea that we can train media, civil servants andthe public to understand the value added by civil society – we just have to deliver. Citizensdo not think in objectives, target groups, achievables, and indicators of success. However thepublic will still judge whether you are managing to really make that difference you are talkingabout. This is especially true at the crucial moment when a good report, research, consultation,petition, policy, strategy, pilot model, website should move and produce waves into realsociety. The etymology of the word ‘project’ is a vision in your head of something not existingyet – a good initiative has from the beginning a clear and convincing idea what it is about andhow to arrive at it. To convince citizens to donate time and donors to lend support there is aneed of clear thinking and tactics.7

About the Civil Society Forum - what we heard and what we thinkTo sum it up we believe that civil society is not an army of like-minded people, nor an utopiangroup of altruistic individuals who generously share their time and money to push forward thebrave new world of good society. It is a contested field where different visions of the good societyclash every day. Civil society organizations - from social networks to think-tanks to soupkitchens - are the vehicles of these efforts.---This set of assumptions has very real implications for the work of the CEE Trust. Since the first dayof planning of the Civil Society Forum we have openly declared that we regard this initiative asan opportunity to check our working assumptions and approaches, to listen to what our partnersand grantees have to say about the present and the future: a sort of a big and long focusgroup. The result of this consultation is a proposal by the staff, and a decision of the Board, tospend our last three years of existence and the remaining 25 million USD of our assets, in a morefocused way.First, the structured and widely advertised call for proposals, addressing the needs of the civilsociety, have outgrown their utility. We see an opportunistic tendency to recycle old and safeapproaches and proposed solutions, without consideration for the wider context. The forcefulentrance of the EU as donor, supporting civil society, reinforces the trend. The instrumentalizationof organizations and standardization of activities motivated the CEE Trust to look in theopposite direction. We will welcome inquiries all year around, but will look for bold ideas, bravepositions and strong organizations. We will look more carefully at initiatives and organizationswhich work for important issues, but cannot rely on governmental or business support or mobilizelarge constituencies.Second, we will not indicate thematic areas with higher priority in the selection of proposals tosupport. In 2010 we will be even more concerned not about social needs but about the existenceof actors, able to address these needs: our priority will be those with a clear cause, clearideas of how to achieve it, a clear and public position, clear understanding of who’s behindand beside them and a clear outreach and dialogue with citizens.Third, we will give preference to organizations, which demonstrate willingness and plans howto find support, including financial contributions, in a different way than drafting the regularproject proposal. The best will survive the transition that seems to be happening - from privategrants to institutional ones or real citizens’ support. In that process the CEE Trust will invest its lastfunds into organizations that clearly are maturing into organizations which will continue playinga role in the development of CEE societies.8

Who represents the citizen inCEE in 2009?There are a couple of fundamental legends of civilsociety that has occurred over time. Some claim thatintermediaries such as organizations, corporations,trade unions, political parties, etc are not gatewaysbut rather gatekeepers for democracy, while otherssuggest various intermediary groups constitute thevery essence of democratic societies, behing vehiclesfor civic cooperation that may counterbalance thestate and protect individuals. These variations ofinterpretation of civil society - and more - are stronglypresent and has been a significant part of the last 20years of transformation in Central and Eastern Europe.Taking the temperature of the current state ofrepresentative democacy, the discussion continueson who speaks for the citizen in Central and EasternEurope in 2009? Is it true that we have become “lonelycitizens” with few to represent our voice and interests?This discussion will also touch upon new mechanismsfor social dialogue and civic participation, in relationto more traditional channels of representation?

Who represents the citizen in CEE in 2009?Rayna Gavrilova: Dear colleagues, partners and guest, welcome to the CivilSociety Forum.There are some big questions in the air, I believe, and the 20th anniversary ofthe fall of the Berlin wall is the time to put them on the table. We used to believethat democracy and market economy is enough to have a good society. Theanswer is obviously “no more”. But what else is needed is different things to differentpeople – wealth, solidarity, beauty, privacy, community, whatever. Thequestion we have to ask is who is going to provide them, who can add thisvalue in order to have a meaningful life.How do wework in aworld withso manyanswers?I think the people in this audience have one thing in common - we all believethat we can do something to make this place more livable. The difficult questionand this Forum are really about how to make this happen – how to reachout to the apathetic majorities, which sit on the touchlines and wait for things tohappen? How to get the message through? How to compete with the populistimages? How to make the elective representatives listen? I do not believe thatthis Forum will come up with a list of answers. We are living in a world not withone consensus but with so many different consensuses and what it is even moredifficult – with shifting consensuses. So I believe that the real practical questionis how do we do our work in a world of so many answers.We came here to have a conversation, to ask questions and to make sure thatthese questions deliver something. We truly believe that in the end there willbe something for all of us to use later in our work - so we will make sure that allanswers are available.Aleksander Smolar: I am suppose to speak about legends of civil societyand this mean about perceptions, about certain patterns of self definition of theCivil Society people of NGOs and civil society. This is already one of the legends, identificationof the civil society with NGOs and the problems of the relation with reality. Idiscourse andhistory think it is quite extravagant and very positive to have such an introduction - notself-gratulation but rather questions and problems being proposed here at thevery beginning of our forum. A few words about history: the popularity of civilsociety as a public discourse comes from our region, from the development ofindependent organizations of dissidents in political opposition. [This concept]came to be extremely popular all over the world in America, in south-east Asia,but it started in our region long before ‘89 and I would like to propose certainperiodification of this development in our countries.DuringcommunismFrom the point of view of strategies of dealing with the ancient regime I wouldsay that the first very important movement we had in many countries at leastin our region, came around ’56. Based on the principle of the politic spheres,it was a revisionist movement, who believed that we can change the regimesfrom inside, to democratize society. A few years [we believed in] that and therewas deep disappointments. In the 60s it was the discourse - economics first. Economicreforms, market socialism and the idea that we can change our economy- and through the economy we will also change the political spheres. Thenin the beginning of the 70s we had international economic dependence first,the interdependence of our region, rising dependence on the west, big economicaid from the west and belief that the west will influence [our regimes].10

Who represents the citizen in CEE in 2009?There were in fact some facts that indicated that this was true, internal developmentsin our countries can be influenced with the Helsinki accords, not onlyeconomically.Ideologization ofcivil societyCivil society- trust andenergyThe 4th [belief on how to act for change in relation to the communist regime]was society first. This was the discovery of anti-political strategy or civil societystrategy, which was based on the conviction that we cannot confront thecommunist power directly, but we should try to diminish the space controlledby politics. It was a political strategy but at the same time the language usedwas antipolitical: to diminish political space. Afterwards we had an ideologizationof the concept of civil society, already before ‘89 you can find in manyarticles e.g. by Vaclav Havel, but also György Konrád in Hungary or people likeJazek Kuron and Adam Michnik in Poland. [They said] that in reality this is thefuture, not traditional pluralist liberal type of political system, but we have discoveredthe new structure of politics, a new way of doing politics. In ‘89 therewas a sort of euphoria, and I can quote a few sentences of Jiri Dienstbier (oneof the leaders of the opposition in the then Czechoslovakia) who was sayingduring a conference with the pope in St Adolpho in August ’89: “we don’t needto talk about civil society, we see civil society”.Let’s say there was a lot of mythology and ideologization [idealization?] of civilsociety and afterwards a lot of disappointment. This is one of our problems today,because of what was discovered much later, that in our region the levelof trust [which is] the foundation of civil society is very low, the lowest in Europe.The level of self organization is [also] very low. Of course this should be discussedbecause it is about NGOs, but civil society is also something else, it is also informalrelations which is much richer [as a definition]. Actually [the informal relations]during communist times were much richer, but it’s a little bit like with theeconomy measure of BNP, you measure what is possible to measure and youcannot measure production which is not measured in money. This is like civil society,we are measuring what we can measure meaning NGOs, although civilsociety is much larger concept.Usage bypolitical camps[This has generated] a very big impact on global and intellectual thinking inthe west and three different ideological and political currents have been influencedby the experience of our region. The left discovered in the civil societymovement a reincarnation of the idea of utopia and withering away of thestate – this is the society which is organized without the state, and it was duringa period of deep crises of the left looking for new ideas and the humanrights and civil society [discourse] became new key words of a new universalismas the old ones were in deep crisis. The concept also became very popularamong conservatives and neo-conservatives because in the civil society concept,they were discovering the tool to fight against the big state and involvementof the state. There was the term of welfare society [which they] used toreplace the welfare state; [meaning] that it is not the state that should takecare of the underdogs, the marginalized and the outcast, but society itself.So it was ideologically manipulated as well [both to the right and the left]. Thethird current we can call communitarian and catholic (although those are twogroups, they are overlapping but not the same) the myth and the dream abouta non-individualistic society but rather a well integrated society, I will not usecollectivist society, because the word has bad connotations. So these werethree currents that were really influenced [by the concept of civil society]. Then11

Who represents the citizen in CEE in 2009?Colorrevolutions- goldendays of civilsociety?New actors andtechnologyCompetitionon the publicsphere -decline of civilsociety?there was also an advancement of the idea of civil society, and the enormousimportance attached to civil society, because of the international communityand the strategy of democracy and human rights promotion by western statesassociated this very much with the process of globalization as well. We have bigthe international organizations - Human [Rights] Watch, Amnesty International,Doctors without Borders and so on, which were playing a very important roleand this somehow was a manifestation of the rising importance of the internationalcivil society as a concept.The next steps - and I would say the summit of the popularity of the conceptit - came with the color revolutions. Once again we are back in our region inthe larger sense of the term, of course [including] Serbia in 2000 and the roleof the youth in the organization [of the anti-Milosevic movement]. AfterwardsGeorgia’s rose revolution and the importance of youth organizations in Ukraineduring the orange revolution in 2004, and we had the much bigger Kirgiz caseof 2005 - and it seemed that we really had some progress of democracy andhuman rights assured by grassroots’ initiatives. There was a feeling of rising powerof NGOs and of soft power [in general]. Information and new means of informationplayed an enormous role, before there were two types or ways ofinternational organizations: multinational organizations, corporations and theRoman Catholic Church which played a really important role. Protests weremuch more decentralized. Now that we have new types of NGOs and diminishingcost of information, internet has played an enormous role. Also in popularizationof these color revolutions, these countries influenced each other verymuch, and there was a fear in Russia and other not very democratic countriesthat this model will be introduced [in other places].The last case was Iran – I remember very well that I was together with AdamMichnik invited to Iran, practically to talk about what to do (although it wascoded language as an “intellectual meeting”) what to do to put in questionthe mullah’s regime. Actually the organizer was arrested afterwards and accusedof trying to organize a color revolution in Iran, so this is the measure of theimportance of the phenomena. To the point where their appearance was conceivedby others as a threat to power, NGOs were really considered as a worldsuperpower. Maybe NGOs contributed to democratization in certain countries,especially to those I mentioned, [at least they] contributed very much tochanges and pluralization.Then about the negative and the problems. I mentioned once already thatcivil society was a great myth and this myth has been put into question, a firstsign is the real situation of civil society in our countries, the second is that everybodyhas escaped from that minimal or moral civil society that we knew duringopposition time to politics. All big names of Polish opposition as well as Slovak,Czech, Hungarian went into politics. The minimal or moral civil society was asubstitute in times when direct opposition was impossible, and all those people[have since] left. Of course there is also a competition [for people, ideas, attention?]in different sectors - the political society, the economic society, themarket and the church, especially in countries where the church is very strongPoland Lithuania, to some extent Slovakia.There is a second problem, that of donors. Civil society after 89 was built withgreat generosity and help of western donors, most of all American donors. We12

Who represents the citizen in CEE in 2009?Donors anddidirectionCreativityConstituencyEU andglobalizatoinknow the names of all of these donors, we took advantage of their generoushelp and in some weaker countries the whole NGOS sector was built on westernmoney. These organizations are until today playing an enormous role. Butthere is a dramatic problem here and this is the problems of agenda - what isthe agenda of all these NGOs in our countries? Is it established by the NGOs[themselves] in these countries, or is it a donor-driven civil society? This is a verycomplex phenomena. Of course there is a lot of initiative from inside, but thereare also a lot of ideas coming from the outside. “Send us your proposals” – buteverybody knows what our priorities are… I remember in the 90s I was on theboard of a big Russian NGO and in contact with several others, and I was surprisedthat all big Russian NGOs were working on two problems: ecology andthe problem of local government. Those are very important problems, but thereare at least 10-20 other important problems [to address] but money was notavailable. These organizations they were shaped by the demand, or I wouldrather call it the offer, by the partner/donor. The objectives of donors was verygenerous but of course a t the same time they were shaped by their own prioritiesand perceptions of what is really important for these new democracies, thisis a very important factor.I don’t want to say that there was any bad will or manipulation, no it was agood fight and with good reasons and generally with really good results. Manyof our best organization wouldn’t have existed without this generous help. Theconsequences were however, among other things that what we are facing [today].Diminishing levels of internal creativity, looking for ideas, looking for whatwe should do, what our priorities really are, who is our constituency, what is thepublic we should address ourselves to in our countries? There is not necessarilya contradiction between the two constituencies - donors and citizens - but ofcourse there are certain tensions. And of course there is an impact on creativity,to tell you the truth this is not only the problem of NGOs but of our whole state:agenda have been imposed to a big extent by the European Union! This is oneof the reasons why people are escaping to symbolic politics, because the realchoices they cannot make, they are predetermined by the conditions to enterthe EU. Once again this was very good for these countries as they have modernized,but at the same time it sterilized internal politics in some way. It pushed[us] towards antipolitics, because the real political choices were elsewhere. Sowe in the NGO sector are facing partly very similar problems [as the state itself],and I can also say about the business community [that their existence and success]was also to some extent predetermined by banks, which are controlledby western banks and policy. During the crisis we paid the price for their objectives[established] in their mother countries. This is a bit of the problem with acosmopolitan world.I think there was a radical turn in donors’ policy [lately], I think we can start in’98. There was the problem of fighting with Meciar, civil society organizationsengaged more and more in parapolitical activities - it was ‘98 in Slovakia, ‘99 inCroatia and afterwards came the colored revolutions. The problem, a very importantone, which is posed in many non-democratic countries in the so calledthird world, is that they are considering NGOs as the new imperialism, tryingto impose western values upon a country which is not making such a choice.Of course this is many times because they cannot make that choice as theyare dictatorships. One can say that external interventions in the global worldare much more transparent than they used to be. We can also say that this13

Who represents the citizen in CEE in 2009?Correlationdemocracyand civilsocietyintervention from outside contributed very much to democratization. The rightto intervene and the obligation to protect, in a way it was the summit of internationallaw institutionalization, carrying a policy of an open world overcomingthe traditional concept of sovereignty. These problems are much biggernow because of China, now we have a competitive model which shows thatit is not true that you need a democracy to have development, or you needcivil society to have development. China is a country which at least until nowis extremely centralized, where there is no space for political privileges and nospace for civil organizations, and this model is extremely successful in terms ofdevelopment up until now. A big part of the world, also due to old antiwesterncomplexes, is now turning towards china. Even a big part of the left, because ofanti-western, anti-capitalism, anti-liberal attitudes, in the re-directing of themselvesare observing attentively what China is doing.There is also a new discovery which is quite chocking, and this is the discovery inour countries that democracy and civil society is not so correlated as it used tobe according to Toqueville’s thoughts. We have in our countries democraciesthat are not perfect, far from perfect, but which are quite decent democraciesalong with very weak civil societies. This is also a problem to discuss: what is reallythe relation between civil society and full-fledged deep democracy, not onlyformal democracy from the point of view of elections, but defined as a cultureof pluralism? Of course [a culture of pluralism – democracy in its broad terms]needs civil society, but this is a long historical process apparently and it appearsthat we can have [some form of basic] functioning democracy without civilsociety. We have very interesting internal critique of civil society in our countries– one famous example is Vaclav Claus which considers civil society “HumanRight-ism”, a post-socialist collectivist discourse against the liberal individualistdemocratic society. We have also critique from the quite opposite camp, fromPolish influential ex Prime Minister Jaroslav Kaszinski, violent critique against civilsociety that this is against the state [and contribute to] weakening of the nationstate. [Similar to] the Jacobinian vision which is very negative, that civil societyis a way of doing politics by people who are not able to form political parties.There is also critique of civil society concept from the left – e.g. in the article byAgnieszka Graff – [she claims] that civil society is an antipolitical concept andwe should instead try to build a true pluralist political system with clear positionsand clash of ideas, because the best democracies can function only with sucha concept. I will finish without conclusions, because there are no conclusionjust questions, which I hope will be not only negative but can contribute to ourcontinued discussion.Is democracyworking?Wawrzyniec Smoczynski (moderator): The purpose of this session is tosee what lies behind the concepts that are used to describe our political andsocial realities in the region. Because I think that there is an increased sense thatthese concepts are not really describing what we are living in. I would like tostart with Ivan Krastev and a slightly strange question: if you were to put yourselfin the position of Alexis de Tocqueville and instead of going to America wouldmake a travel around Central and Eastern Europe 20 years after the fall of communism,what would you think would be his diagnosis? What kind of politicalsystem have we come up with, would he at least describe it as a democracy?Ivan Krastev: First I was asked to replace Darina [Malova] which is alreadydifficult, and now you are trying to put me in Tocqueville’s shoes which is slightly14

Who represents the citizen in CEE in 2009?Do we know whatwe are seeing?Political volatilitytoo much. First of all I will just try to make a simple argument. There is a verypopular experiment, you are giving to a person very quickly in succession [apicture], and you are asking him all the time: what do you see? He says: I seea cat. After that you are putting among the cat photos some photos of a dog,and you continue asking what he sees and he continues saying that he sees acat. After that you are putting cats and dogs after another, ask what he seesand he continues to say he sees cats. Basically psychologists use this experimentto prove that people see what they are used to see, what they expect tosee. This is a part also of all this talk about democracy, unfortunately I do thinkthat part of the problem with CEE democracy is that we see cats even whenthe dogs start to prevail. What I mean is that we have been basically imitatinga model which does not exist anymore. If you see the normative model ofdemocracy which was put on the ground in the early 1990s, basically this is notto be seen anywhere. In the early 90s if you were to write a book about whatdemocracy is, you were going to write about the workers. It is not about theworkers anymore (the fact of this [factory] turning into a conference hall). Itis much more the consumer than the worker which is really the political forcewhen it comes to democracy.You would also be talking about political parties and voters sticking to theirpreferred political parties. The truth is that now, at least in Bulgaria we havewhat is called volatility, the change of the vote is very big. 20 years ago peoplebelieved that switching from one side to another e.g. from the right to the left,was as difficult as changing your side during the religious wars in the 17th century.Now this is like changing from one shampoo to another, there is a totallydifferent political logic. Then for the talk about who is sitting to the left of whomand who is sitting to the right, basically I do believe that the best definition ofthe state of left and right these days come from someone who said that afterthis economical crisis the state of the left and right basically can be seen in thebalance sheets of the banks, nothing left on the right where the profit is andnothing right on the left where the assets are. This definition of left and right isalso simply not working.I want to follow Alex Smolar and make 3 arguments and 3 assumptions whichwe made [about democracy] and which could be wrong. First of all, the meaningof the voting has changed a lot and is more an execution and reference onthe government than a meaningful choice between competing political programs.Nevertheless, when we are talking about radical choices we are backin the situation which we know from pre-democratic times: it is much moreabout control of personnel and about integrity and reputation of politiciansthan about political programs. The second assumption is about civil society. Wewere told that the stronger the civil society organizations the better for democracy,but let’s give you one historical argument: the country with the strongestcivil organizations in pre-war Europe was of course Weimar Germany. Many ofthese organizations were the backbones of the Nazi party. When we talk aboutcivil society [today] we are very much exposed to this, I don’t see many peoplehere from religious organizations, or people representing nationalistic organizations.Talking about definition of civil society, the Hungarian Guard fits: youngand organized.Wawrzyniec Smoczynski: the same thing one could say about today’s Poland,the most robust civil society organization is the one lead by father Rydzyk,15

Who represents the citizen in CEE in 2009?the radical right wing cleric. I want to go back from civil society to democracyand ask Milla Mineva: we are describing our political system in CEE as representativedemocracies and the presumption behind that is that representations isthe core idea of democracy. Do we have [active enough] citizens, as they areexpected to be in the theoretical model, to run a representative democracy inCEE with all the apathy we see in elections?Do citizens wantrepresentation?Milla Mineva: Let me start with the question about representative democracywhether people still want to be represented. Because what we are seeingis that people are gaining power to communicate, to travel, to producetheir own media content, they lack power only to produce their own politicalcontent. They are gaining power outside of representative systems, without intermediarieswhile the political [sphere] is still very conservative and based onthe idea of representation. There is another great problem [with representativedemocracy], that Alex Smolar and Ivan Krastev mentioned, voting is more anexecution of the government than electing a platform, as EU integration processmade governments having one and the same policy. So actually we arechanging parties, but we were not changing policies, The political has becomeun-political. Maybe we should not try to explain [the fact that] people don’twant to vote with their apathy, but [it is because of] the apathy and behaviorof the political parties and their political subjects?Moving on to the citizens I would say that we have too much individuals andtoo little citizens for democracy. Because we are all individualized and itemizedin a fragmented society we cannot form communities around interest and negotiatearound interest. I would like to follow Chantal Mouffe in her argumentthat democracy is a process of negotiating interests and a process of negotiatingthe relations between liberty and equality. Right now we are in a situationwhere we have a lot of liberty but not [so much] equality and political debateon the common good. The citizens actually don’t know what to do with theirliberty. Something else I would like to change is the frame in which we think,- regarding citizens we think [subjects] within national political communities, althoughwe are now in a phase of globalization where all political communitiesare inertly related, so [the question is] if we can have any national politics at all?Wawrzyniec Smoczynski: That would mean that also in terms of citizens weare talking about cats instead of dogs right?Milla Mineva: Yes – citizens are completely different.Wawrzyniec Smoczynski: I have a question for Slawomir Sierakowski thereis a German critique on the state of German democracy talking a lot about“Politikvergessenheit” or the kind of attitude of resignation towards politics. Oneof the explanations says that at least Western Europe has lost its long term goal,[democracy] was used over the 20th century to achieve certain goals such ashuman rights etc, and as those goals are achieved there is no more promiseinside democracy or a purpose to participate in it. Now you would argue obviouslythat we haven’t advanced those rights in CEE and we have many thingsto put on the agenda, but people in Poland are also skeptical towards grantingrights to sexual minorities with regards to marriages and adoption etc. Whatwould be the promise of democracy in the future in CEE if it is to attract peopleto become active citizens?16

Who represents the citizen in CEE in 2009?Post-politics?anti-politics?Slawomir Sierakowski: What I like in our polish Bulgarian conspiracy here isthat we started talking about politics and antipolitics at the same time. It is veryinteresting to me to think that this process started from antipolitics in the Polishand CEE regional dissident movement and ended up in post-politics which isvery visible especially in this region. Here post politics of the periphery is reallysomething because of the lack of strong social institutions. Let me refer back towhat Alex Smolar said, I don’t think it is a problem that dissidents from before‘89 went into politics after [the fall of communism] the problem is that they wentinto politics with the same ideas of antipolitics [that they had in the dissidentmovement].It is efficient to perceive the social reality which is built on two elements – on eviland good, on democracy and totalitarianism, its correct and it is efficient politicallyas well [to use] this kind of political epistemology. But if you transfer it toafter 1989 and to the democratic regime, you will have a big problem to build arealistic public scene, and this is one of the founding scenes of liberal democraciesin this region. If you start with antipolitics and you don’t believe any more inleft and right, at the end of the day you will end up with a dysfunctional conflictbetween elites and populists. Not between two visions of modernization, butwith one always correct vision of modernization - a vision of Meciar, Kaczynski.This is a self fulfilling prophecy because I really think that Kaczynski is a symptomof the illness of the liberal democracy in the periphery.ForbiddendiscussiontopicsIn this region we really had a lot of “denkverbots” [forbidden thought] somethingthat really is a conversation stopper. We had a very short agenda in thepublic sphere and couldn’t really discuss e.g. about the market or about economicpolicy, so instead we started to discuss about history and about corruption.If you cannot articulate some problems, especially in a time of hardcoretransformation, the society will articulate it in a pathologic way and this is theproblem with populism. I would propose the organization of regional transformationof the past 20 years had 3 stages - one was the stage of neoliberal revolutionor very ideological transformation, the second was the populist reactionto it, and now we observe something like political synthesis.Wawrzyniec Smoczynski: If you would have a room full of dissolution CEEcitizens how would you put the argument to them that democracy is somethingworth participating in?Civil societyembracingpoliticalorganizations?Slawomir Sierakowski: The problem is that you told me that we have 20minutes to talk about democracy, however then I realized that this problem isvery symptomatic. The problem is not that democracy started to be fiction becausethe public sphere was colonized by the market, media is just part of thebusiness, politics is just a part of the business too - the problem is that democracystarted to be irrelevant for society. The problem is that we [civil society] growthe relationship between anger and hope, and we have only the anger left,which turns out to be autistic resentment and nothing which will actually shiftpolitics in some kind of direction or includes a political vision. So of course one ofthe propositions is to rethink the idea of civil society, as Agnieszka Graff states,e.g. my own NGO [Krytyka Polityczna] is not an NGO which is non-political orantipolitical – it is a political organization.18

Who represents the citizen in CEE in 2009?Wawrzyniec Smoczynski: So would you agree with Milla Mineva that democracyis just an invisible framework, a tool that needs to be sustained amongvoters or citizens? This would mean we shouldn’t be looking for a promise insidedemocracy or something sexy about it which people should feel positiveabout?Loss of thepoliticalSlawomir Sierakowski: The dangerous promise which we got after 1989 wasthat we can forget about the political, the social and political field is neutraland on this you can directly articulate your interest. Chantal Mouffe says thatsociety is never constructed neutral, it is always constructed in a hegemonicway and there is always one hegemony against another, and [I find it] goodand realistic to think in that way. It mobilizes you to work and think and perceivethe reality in a political way, rather than a naïve, neutral social way. Rememberthat civil society in Poland really functioned like a substitute or like a buffer -something that will keep people away from politics. You have to realize yourselfin the private sphere, if you want to do something more, there is a small groundof civil society in which you can realize your altruistic ideas, but stay away frompolitics because politics this is a technical process.Problems onthe politicalarena globallyWawrzyniec Smoczynski: Going back to speaking about the divisions; oneof the assumptions was for the CEE that we should also have political scenesarranged in left and right. What we see around the region right now is a dividebetween populists and semi-elitist parties, is this a long-term phenomena or justa reaction to 20 years of transition?Aleksander Smolar: I think this is the illness of our democracy, and not onlyin the east. In a way two major features of democracy, militant activists and citizenswere replaced by the technocrat - populist couple. This is not an accident,it is a problem of representation. It is also part of the globalization process. Thismeans that most of the decisions are [taken] outside of the national domain soyou [on the national level] cannot decide. This concern e.g. economy; most ofthe production is [situated] outside of the country so it cannot be controlled ofnational government. It is about the law, bigger and bigger international law[ruled from outside]. Even symbolic identification with plural identities there aremuch less of than in the 19th or beginning of the 20th century, [citizens] identifyingthemselves with the nation-state, we are not ready anymore (at least abig part of the population) to invest in it as in the past. This creates a situationwhere you have a feeling of very limited possibilities of decision, especially inour region where imitated development has been our faith. It was chosen to bethat way, and I think it was a good choice just to imitate development of moredeveloped countries of Western Europe. However it limited the political spaceand the space of political division even more.I am sympathizing with Slawomir but at the same time I think the problem whichlimits the space of democracy is much more complex. This is the consequenceof a transformation in today’s world. Paradoxically, I think that this crisis is introducingmuch more politics than what we had before, not necessarily with positiveeffects, because it will be associated very much with tendencies towardsautocracy and dependence of the nation state. Democracy until today is notable to function [in other dimensions] but the national one – so paradoxically itcan be also quite regressive process.19

Who represents the citizen in CEE in 2009?Slawomir Sierakowski: To say it in a different way, this crisis has shown thatthere is no hope for real reaction. It turns that people do not want to involvethemselves even during this type of heated situation. I think part of the problemis the way we describe the problem, you ask us about representative democracyand representation, and I really believe that the idea of representation isanother modern utopia. Like the correspondence theory of truth, I see the analogybetween them, we really expect that people have their political ideas andtheir definition of what is happening – that we are there now.What’s sodifferentaboutpopulism?If you take the definition of populist politics you will see that it is the same. Whatis the difference between populist politics and honest politics? Honest politicsis gathering people and convincing them around a program that they invent.Populist politics are gathering people by first seeing which their opinions are.What is the common activity of politicians in the region and everywhere? Publicpolling - they do it every day, they want to decide about their program.Do they support sexual minorities, [they decide] only after the public poll tosee whether people would support the idea or not. No one wants to convincepeople about an idea [anymore], I really think it is just the horizon to discuss theidea of representation, it is not efficient for understanding the problem and finda solution.Wawrzyniec Smoczynski: One small footnote, one could argue that populistparties are more honest because they are much better at feeling real socialtensions and underline problems. The problem is that they don’t come up withsolutions. 2 reactions from Ivan and Milla.Ivan Krastev: I have a very short point, which is important for me to put here.There are probably different political consequences [on what to take] out ofthis crisis, but one of them that I can see on the global level, as well as on thelevel of our countries is a crisis of governability of society at a whole. This is notthat you have a problem of one program or another, but society is very difficultto govern, seen from the point of view of the government and also from thepoint of view of the people. I will give you one example. When the LehmanBrothers collapsed a year ago, two important things happened. First the secretaryof the treasury of the US, probably one of the most influential economicfigures in the world, came up with a 700 billion bailout plan. You could expectthat the investors and the market would be reassured. Nothing like this happened,it all continued going down. The next day Warren Buffet started buyingshares in Citibank, showing the other type of authority saying “I am fine I believein Citibank”. Do you expect people went buying Citibank shares? Just the opposite- they continued selling. I believe we see a huge crisis of authorities andelites, not simply the treasure of state, it’s also the elites of the market itself thatis not trusted.Lack of trust inauthorityThis level of mistrust goes very much into politics itself. We are now much morein the business of organizing mistrust than creating trust, and this is a differentgame. And from this point of view I can easily sympathize morally with the ideaof politicizing, but this is like saying that religion is fine: it is fine, but can you getpeople back to church? I do believe this is also true for the church of the leftand the church of the right, it’s not so easy to go back to a situation which wasmuch more functional [before].20

Who represents the citizen in CEE in 2009?Relevance ofleft-rightDanger ofsymbolicpoliticsSlawomir Sierakowski: Since the time when the left and right divisionemerged, we have not only once [been in a position of] wanting to go beyondit, but there were many times when people went back to left and right [politics].Another thing that is symptomatic during the crisis: always when you want togather some money from the government for very large problems like illness orhunger or disasters, they always will tell you that it will take some time, let’s thinkabout it. But when you want to find 700 million for bankers you can find it likethat. It shows that it is not that we live in a world without the big other or withoutauthority, we live in a world in which the class division doesn’t correspond tothe shape of the public sphere. Of course there are rulers in the world and theproblem is that we cannot really counterbalance them on the political field.The problem of the colonialization of the public sphere and so on.Milla Mineva: I would say that the economic crisis right now is good news forthe political sphere, because it makes it obvious that there is an end to the freemarket utopia, and now it is time to have a political discussion and debate ondifferent political projects. Right now we are talking about organizing mistrust,I am sure that this is what the elites are talking about and not the people. I’dsay that depending on which perspective we chose. Of course as Mr. Smolarsaid the crisis revived some nationalistic discourses, the idea of the state as theredistributing power. But more importantly it makes local communities matter,it makes national communities matter. It’s the right time to think about politicalcommunities. The other strive during the crisis was an attempt to make internationalinstitutions, maybe it is also time to invent a notion of the global citizen, acitizen who can influence on the global level?Wawrzyniec Smoczynski: That would run counter to the argument that authorityhas gone several level downwards,Milla Mineva: It is a global process. On one hand it is going down to smallcommunities, but on the other hand economic decisions are not taken on thelevel of small communities, they are taken on the global level. So citizens shouldact on the same global level if they want to influence global politics, and thecrisis is good news for those who want to act on the global sphere.Wawrzyniec Smoczynski: Ivan has a commentIvan Krastev: Did you see how easily you jumped from this individualized consumersto the people thinking one thing and elites thinking another. When yougo back to this type of polarization, you can see it in the US in a positive way, forthe health reform there is no “the people” - there are different people along adifferent divide, and this divide cannot be reduced to economic and incomedistinction.One of the problems of the crisis is the return of symbolic politics. Opposite ofwhat many people believe: that the crisis is going to strengthen the left rightdivide, I believe that the crisis is going to strengthen symbolic politics: ethnic,nationalist, us versus them, even classical populism such as people versus theelite. It is not so easy to recreate the dividing line [between left and right] I don’tbelieve it is undesirable but rather the opposite, but it is not so easy to make thedivision and one of the reasons is nationalization. Is there a left that stands fornationalization? This is a critical issue, as this was the diving line, left versus right,21

Who represents the citizen in CEE in 2009?when there was a major distinction. Talking about the church but not believingin god is practical - but it is good for conferences, I don’t believe it is good forpolitics.Wawrzyniec Smoczynski: Friends, government are the answers [to thequestion “whom do you turn to in case of a problem?”]– and the internet.Doesn’t this give a huge blow to the notion that NGOs are the new intermediariesin participatory democracy?NGOs, newmedia anddisillusionIvan Krastev: This kind of illusion that NGOs will compensate for mistrust in politicians,is based simply on the fact that NGOs don’t like to see public perceptionsabout them. In Bulgaria the NGOs are more mistrusted than the politicalparties. This is an achievement, as there are more people believing that thereare people living on the moon, than those who trust political parties. Trust inNGOs in Bulgaria is below 10 %. Why am I saying this? because we are startingfrom a kind of assumption that we are trusted because we have good intentions,because we are here to help people and so on. This is also very muchbased on the perception of the others. The difference between NGOs and the[political] parties is that because we don’t go on election, we can live with thisillusion as long as we want. There is never failure or real success in the NGO businessbecause it is us who defines what is success and what is failure.This is very critical and has a lot to do with the misconception that NGOs areproducing when it comes to internet the media and so on. We are here in aroom with two hundred people and we create the illusion that there are hundredsof thousands watching us on the internet. I don’t know how many peopleare watching us, they are not going to be more than 200, and if this is the casewe are producing some kind of virtual public to which we talk and who werepresent. We are also starting to be so much in love with different technologiesand especially the internet that it is being used to compensate for our ownproblem and crisis of legitimacy. Let’s give you some figures that you are notgoing to like, The Obama administration is also very interested in showing howthe internet can help people participate in policy decision making. So theyasked for proposals online and also asked people to vote on these proposals.The results were 44.000 proposals which were put to the Obama administrationregarding what should be the main priorities of their administration. 1.5 millionpeople voted on these proposals. What is the result? The priority number onethat came up was the liberalization of marijuana. This is extremely important torealize, that in a certain way this part of virtual reality is creating different tricksin which we can appear much more representative than we are.The basic problem is not simply about trust or mistrust, by the way people arenow much more going to court than voting, they believe that suing the governmentis more effective when it comes to defending their personal rights, thancooperating with the government or voting. I do believe that all these practicesshould be taken seriously because probably after the bubble of Wall Street thenext bubble could be on the ngo–street.Wawrzyniec Smoczynski: There is an illusion that there is representation, atleast in the NGO sector, but in general in our democracy is it the case that thedebate is lacking or is it simply not needed because people don’t feel the needto be represented? Is it just an idea that is anachronistic?22

Who represents the citizen in CEE in 2009?The new greenand the difficultyto createreal politicalmovementsMilla Mineva: Difficult question. Let me start with a story of the newest Bulgarianparty, the Greens. They were previously a very strong internet based movementwithout NGOs, well in fact they hated NGOs (however, actually used severalof them to make their projects more efficient). In the end they decided tocreate a political party and go to elections. They were really very active, theyacted as a grass roots party indeed and a lot of young people came out tovote for them. They didn’t get into the parliament however, as it appeared thatthey could not organize people through internet. They were [beforehand] absolutelyconvinced that they do not need to represent anybody, that they arethe civil society and that they will enter the parliament as themselves.The most interesting part was that their political agenda was of course to makerepresentative democracy useless, with referenda on every political question.This is the agenda of a lot of NGOs, who would like to make the political processby referendum [involving] people themselves, instead of [voting on] representativesof parties. I am not saying that the way [in which] parties represent peopleare nice, but I do say that we need to reinvent the idea of representativity.We have to reinvent political divides, to vote for platforms, and what we wouldlike to see as a good society. The problem with such an idea is that we have nostrive for a collective future or project for the whole society. No one wants tobe active in something that is not individual, and this is a problem. We still needrepresentation, but we don’t want it.Do wereally want Wawrzyniec Smoczynski: So do we really want it?representation?Milla Mineva: No we don’t, but I am sure we need it because without representationwe cannot do anything. People tried a lot [of alternative ways] butdidn’t succeed - until now at least.Wawrzyniec Smoczynski: That is why we are having such a good discussion.I am opening the floor now for questions and please feel free to answerand try to formulate your questions as directly as possible and precisely.Participant 1: The major question I think needs to be discussed is what are weasking about, how do we formulate the questions? So I think we need to go beyond[an initial point] and start asking specific questions: works for what? Howdo we define basic terminological framework?Participant 2: I think it simply reveals first the state of politics and democracythat we are in. Several authors rightly emphasize that politics has a specificevil and a specific rationality within it, the specific evil being it’s instrumentaland manipulative side and the rationality being the one we are hoping to seewhere representative and elected officials solve problems that we would liketo, instead of ourselves [doing it]. The second [point is about] democracy. Democracyis something that is reinvented every day and does not come on a silverplate as many expected when communism disappeared. This is the beautyand the difficulty of it. Democracy is like us who are sitting here, we have complaintsabout democracy [means that] we are complaining about ourselves. Ithink that we live in a modern world where we expect others to do [something]for ourselves within the representative framework, and this is part of the conundrumwe are facing. It was most clearly stated at the beginning of the 19thcentury by Benjamin Constant when he talked about the liberty of the ancients23

Who represents the citizen in CEE in 2009?and the liberty of the moderns. The liberty of the moderns is that we are allowednot to engage in politics to be virtuous citizens, while the liberty of the ancientworld was that you were considered a virtuous citizen by engaging in politics.Today you can go and mend your garden and your fence, and leave othersto do it, but as Constant says at the end of his essay if we all go to our gardens,politics will become manipulative, authoritarian and alienated from us citizens.I think we shouldn’t despair, both politics and democracy has been around formore than 2000 years. We have had ups and downs, it is all about us engagingwhether in civil society or in party politics. I think the discussion is revealing anattempt to find, in a foggy situation, a common way forward. I am convincedthat hope will overbear anger and resignation.What aboutpragmaticsolutions?Participant 3: It was very inspiring to hear what we should do, but maybe wecan focus on what actually can do. The real problem is that over the last tenyears NGOs in CEE, in my view, is at a loss, especially now when alerting is not anissue anymore. A lot of times it is advocacy and real in-house input that NGOsare asked to provide, and that’s where they are failing. I think that many NGOsdon’t know how to go about it.Time to leaveinstitutions andstart looking atexperienceMilla Mineva: It is very important how we formulate the questions. There is asurvey which I like a lot, it is “The Voice of the People”. There the question wasformed like this: “do you think that democracy is the best form of government,even though it has a lot of difficulties?” 79% of the people of the world said yes.Ivan Krastev: Democracy does not work easily. I do also believe that democracyis the art of living with bearable dissatisfaction (it is not me who formulatedit so nicely). For me the main difference I want to see, is that we have beentalking for 20 years about institutions, about normality and basically imitatingthe way that institutions [elsewhere] function. It is high time to look at the experienceof people living in democracies. The disappointment with democracy isimportant and when you say what about NGOs, probably the ngos are not themost important vehicle? If there is a legacy that comes from the 1989 period,there was a time for self-reflective activism. There was a time for Kuron, Michnik,Havel and others, who took very seriously the change of the context andthe constraints being there. It is not simply people speaking about values, theywere much more pragmatic and practical than we are. I do believe that for20 years, we have became very good at speaking about values and speakingabout institutions. Probably we should try to re-contextualize where we standand if NGOs are not something that is going to work - let’s try something differentWawrzyniec Smoczynski: Simon Delakorda, 3 questions from the net?Simon Delakorda: To summarize: do you think that civil society in Europeshould redefine its mission in the light of democratization process and startfocusing on representativity of representative democracy? How can we talkabout civil society as long as NGOs do not have links between them? What isthe common identity of NGOs that can be communicated to the public so thatthey can perceive NGOs as civil society? Is there any chance of unity? Relyingon European funds is [a problem, as] the message have to be accepted of thegovernment who are granting the funds. Is there a risk that NGOs will becomean appendix of the government?24

Who represents the citizen in CEE in 2009?No commonobjectiveInstrumentalizationand the EUAleksander Smolar: First of all I don’t think we should formulate an objectivefor civil society. Civil society has no objective, this is the reality of interconnectedpeople acting together in a spontaneous or organized way. [Individual] NGOsthey should have objectives, but these NGOs are only a part of civil society. Ourway of thinking has to be different. It is exactly Tocquevillian, [at this point] therewasn’t a place for NGOs, they didn’t exist at that time. The problem of interconnectedness,civil society is interconnected in a spontaneous way, and I wouldsay that Europe is much more integrated on the level of civil society than on thepolitical level today. This is a spontaneous process.The third question is very interesting, that of European Union and instrumentalizationof civil society. It is very interesting to watch the World Bank and theInternational Monetary Fund, when they are writing about civil society they arewriting in instrumental terms. How civil society can solve the problems of thedeveloping world for example. That they are often more efficient e.g., which isok, but [although] it is very well that NGOs are taking care of it, it also shows thedanger they are in of becoming just cheaper subcontractors. The problem ofinterdependence of people [is that] there must be a certain tensions betweenindependence and at the same time [someone?] executing very importantpositive role for the community, national or international.Wawrzyniec Smoczynski: As a final note, I would like to come back to theinitial question and ask who speaks for the citizen in 2009.Slawomir Sierakowski: Of course the big capital. And reacting to what IvanKrastev said, he wants to be realistic and we live in a world where god is dead,socialism is dead, and even as Foucault said, humans [humanism?] are dead.I am thinking if this realm of cynical reason is the end point of politics or a realstarting point where you can reinvent values? Another answer could be thatwe still have some kind of structural problems, like ecological problems e.g. thedanger of intellectual property - it may be that in some time, our communicationwill be a property of someone like Bill Gates. These are structural [problems]to which we will have to find a collective answer, we have to reinvent politics.Clash ofexperiencesIvan Krastev: They are not speaking they are singing these days, throughYouTube. The basic problem is different, when we say that there are commonproblems and you are going back to the same things you were fighting. If yougo to places like India or China, you are going to hear that all these environmentalthings are coming from the west and are just new ways of globalizationand colonalization, trying to deprive the Indians and the Chinese of their right todevelopment. I don’t think we will have the clash of ideologies in the same wayas before, but there will be the clash of frameworks and a clash of experiences.In this world the problem of who speaks for who is going to be very difficult,because there are going to be contending speakers all the time articulatingdifferent experiences.A battlefield ofrepresentationMilla Mineva: I can only agree with Ivan and as Rayna said in the beginningof this session, we have shifting consensuses and divisions. Shifting entitiesspeaks for citizens in different moments, the problem is whether citizens recognizethose speakers themselves, and this will be the new battlefield.25

Harnessed and unharnessedenergies - time for a newapproach to NGOs?To what extent has the NGO model fulfilled its intendedmission – and what is the need and place for formallyregistered associations in the future? What about theuncharted territory of individual, ad-hoc and informalgroups' energies as the driving force of the civil society?Over the last two decades, NGOs have drawn theirappeal from a series of features: predictability, institutionalreaction, the possibility of a track record, responsibility,representativeness. The top-down approach (from donorsand facilitators to grass-root NGOs) was arguably the bestway of activating civil society, but was it the only one,and where do we go from here? Professionalism comeswith maturity, but with maturity comes mannerism too.NGOs are at all larger risk of sliding from “know why” to“know how”, doing projects just because we know howto do it and to keep ourselves in business. Is there a needand a chance to reconnect CSOs to the people whoseinterest they claim to represent?

Harnessed and unharnessed energies - time for a new approach to NGOs?NGOs are asupport systemfor social energyOn civil society, citizenship and the role of civicorganizationsIoana Avadani (moderator): We know from school that a question wellasked is half of a good answer. Our most important resource for this session isthe people of this Forum. Do you agree?Participant: for me civil society is the amount of people we could get to comehere today – how many of them can we get to actively participate.Ioana Avadani: How many people do you think we could invite here, howmany people [from our societies] do participate? How many people do youfeel support you in your activities? And how many people can participate inour activities?Mike Edwards: Theoretically everyone, but in practice not everyone. I dothink it is a bit naïve, perhaps unhelpful and certainly unnecessary to believethat pure universal unformed social energy will be enough to get us where wewant to go, at some point you have to achieve some focus and direction. Theproblem is that it is going to be partial and exclusive to some extent, and noteveryone can participate in everything all the time. I see NGOs simply as a supportsystem for broad based social energy of the kind that we would all like toencourage, not something that takes over and dominates organic processesof people coming together and solving problems for themselves, but social energy,like all energies, needs support to be sustained and channeled in usefuldirections. NGOs are just resources for civil society and civil society is the totalityof everyone getting involved as much as possible.Can NGOsbuild goodcitizens?Nilda Bullain: I think the expectation was that NGOs can help build civil society,and that is what is being questioned now, because when you look at thewestern societies we can see that when you have good citizens they can buildgood and effective NGOs, and the question for me is whether it works the otherway around, whether good or effective NGOs can build good citizens? Thequestion about NGOs and civil society comes back to the concept of citizenshipculture, where citizenship is broader than a voter and a taxpayer. For mecitizenship means taking responsibility for your own life, taking responsibility forwhat happens to you, the course of your life, for your decisions and it is not somuch about altruism, solidarity and freedom although those can be part of it,but it is about being a citizens,Ioana Avadani: NGOs have been treated consistently as a work of love,as something we do because of the goodness of our hearts. Also linguisticallyin some parts of the region charity means giving away because you want to.Actually, however, what civil society means is to be representing yourself, participatein shaping up your own future.P: Helping a German minority choir of Hungarian smaller towns – is that civilsociety?Codru Vrabie: To me civil society is not a thing, and it is not a concept, but itis a process. For me civil society is a transmission belt that boils up or boils down27

Harnessed and unharnessed energies - time for a new approach to NGOs?Civil society is atransmission beltTurningfrustration intosomethingconstructivevalues from the masses up to the elite, and then from the elites down to themasses, and it helps all of us grow. […] Organizations themselves simply pick upthe transmission belt, issues from the masses and bring them to the elite that aremaking decisions.Ioana Avadani: Are you aware that you are using a metaphor that was usedunder communist times for the trade unions, the transmission belt?Codru Vrabie: Yes, but the trade unions are just as all civil society organizationsthe result of 2 fundamental freedoms: freedom of association and entrepreneurship,if you bring all of these things together what you get is a numberof persons concerned with respect to public affairs who gather together tosolve a problem. They represent and try to push their interest. Whether it is personalvery private as in the case of trade unions and owners associations, or ifit is more of a public altruistic as an organization that is fighting xenophobia forinstance, or fighting for the rights of animals. What you need primarily is citizens,however the question is: what turns a person into a citizen? My very personalanswer is frustration.P: Slovak extremist nationalist groups are full of joy there is a lot of enthusiasm,and yet we feel that there is something which is not really civil society. On theother hand, we have business men, in this civic initiative around the protestagainst waste dump there were a lot of businessmen involved. There was a lotof small wine businesses, people who were from the community, who were notNGOs not organized anyhow but just they felt that their own interest is touchedby the issue and they were involved. So it doesn’t fit. What is really important Ithink is that it is a question of values, there is a list of values we feel which are civiland which are not, I think this is something we can all agree on.Nilda Bullain: Civil society is not just about the process but it is about the values.Of course there is one view of civil society that says there is one good civilsociety and one bad civil society, so those who represent different kind of valuesthan those we represent in this room are part of civil society just the same.The other thing is about frustration when I talk about this culture of citizenship,ok frustration can be the first step maybe, in other cases there is something else.What is important is the ability to taking that frustration into something constructive,where you take initiative, you take responsibility and you follow up. Whenpeople do that the first time and they are not successful, they unfortunately loseinterest and motivation, and this is what I mean by saying that we don’t reallyhave this culture, if people try once and then fail, often they say ok it’s not forme, I am not successful doing this,On the past and imported modelsCivil society isthe flees thatcomes with thedog of liberaldemocracyCodru Vrabie: 20 years ago somebody decided that we were going to shifttowards liberal democracy - that means someone made that decision that weare going to import another model. With that dog came the flees, which is thecivil society model probably with the NGOs that go with it.P: I am from the Czech republic, in an organization running already for 15years, and I don’t feel that I am imported from anyone I believe that the majorityof the NGOs in Czech Republic I feel that genuinely rooted in genuine com-28

Harnessed and unharnessed energies - time for a new approach to NGOs?munities, and I think we articulate certain important issues, public interest as aminority but parties are as minority as we are, and we try to influence policy andsell our ideas and I really don’t feel that I am imported, although some of thefunds that we have are from the Soros foundation.Ioana Avadani: To summarize, even if the model of NGOs may be imported,the need that underlies the organization is there, so you fill this model with basiclocal needs.Imported ornot - “foreignfactors”has alwaysshapeddevelopmentCivil society didn’tstart in 1989Nilda Bullain: I am also not happy with that whole assumption about impositionand imported models, because I don’t believe there is such a thing as anorganic natural development of a country. We live in a very complex world,development is extremely complex and the way political and economic andsocial systems develop have always in the whole history been affected by alot of factors including foreign and so called outside factors. The way it is presentedmakes it looks like everything that is coming from the outside is not goodbecause it is not natural and everything that is coming from inside is good becauseit is natural, and that is so totally not true. Coming back to the questionabout whether we are different at all to an association of homeowners, I don’tthing we are so different at all, we are all part of civil society. The only differenceis the interest we are trying to pursue. Pretty much this whole group hasdecided to trying to build civil society, we are trying to implant some values inour societies that are organically not there, but still we are from those societiesand we are trying to change it from the inside and some of the donors are tryingto do that from the outside. I think a lot of times this imposition issue comesfrom donors who are guilty because they are trying to impose something fromthe outside, or the guilt felt by people who have used that money but has notbeen very successful.P: We are doing a pretty solid disservice to the civil society that was going onbefore communism, to say that this is all imported, as we are talking about itright now, is to say that civil society started in 1989. Which I think is paternallyfalse. Before communism at least in our community there was a lot of bothcharity and philanthropy going on – during communism there was activismthere was change there was people associated, I think this is something worthconsidering. Imports happen in terms of some frameworks, but at that pointwhat choice was there, if we do swallow wholesale free market economies andsay democracy is the way to go, we got to name the flees that came with thedog. I am not saying I love what happened but I am just saying that this shouldnot be left out of the discussion.Challenges and opportunities for the futureP: The Civil Society Forum managed to provoke my thoughts and hopefullyeverybody else’s. [One of the challenges according to me] is a battle betweenthese different types of organizations. The idea of being imported is actually importantbecause it creates disturbances and challenges to us as a sector whichcannot unite. Ivan Krastev mentioned that NGOs may be the next bubble, whatI believe can be done on a local level to prevent that bubble from bursting, is totry to work in more partnerships with each other, and not with each other alone,but also in partnerships with all of the community. not to confirm the idea thatNGOs are not being able to work collectively because of us [who work in them]30

Harnessed and unharnessed energies - time for a new approach to NGOs?being too much individuals.The myth ofrepresentativityMike Edwards: I wanted to comment on another myth – and that is the mythof representation being so important to the NGO world. It’s become almost afixation and unfortunately it has become a big stick, for us to beat ourselveswith or for others to beat us with. In a way which is quite dangerous or canbe quite dangerous to the purposes we are trying to pursue, certainly in theUnited States this is true, with people now being excluded from public debatebecause they are not “representative”. Most NGOs just claim to be useful insupporting the struggles of others, and that should be the test to which they areheld to account.Ioana Avadani: Putting us in the position to ask ourselves, what kind of job dowe deliver? - is very important.It happens aroundpassionsMike Edwards: People will always organize around their passions, what theyenjoy, what angers them and what frustrates them, not because an NGO, afoundation or a donor is doing something. People always come together toundertake collective action to achieve purposes that motivate them. HoweverNGOs are important to these citizen projects, it’s not like they are squeezingout the life blood of real citizen action. They can be a connective tissue anda support system for civic engagement that otherwise wouldn’t be so strong.You need ideas, you need films being made, you need advocacy, you needtechnical support you need financing in certain ways, those are all very practicalways in which NGOs can be central and useful to releasing and helping tochannel that joyful self expression of citizen action. They don’t replace it, theysimply complement and support it. And yes, if we have lost that sense of joyand love and anger in our work, then we have lost the most important generativeprinciple of a civil society worthy of the name.Ioana Avadani: It is very interesting to see how much reserves for celebrationwe have, even very thorny issues such as democracy in Belarus was celebratedby concerts and music, I think somehow we feel oppressed by our own seriousness,we feel limited by our own desire to be institutional and we somehow burnourselves out forgetting about what actually motivates us this kind of energy.We have comea long way!Nilda Bullain: the discussion about joy reminded me about 2 weeks agowhen we had a study tour group where we were suppose to show NGOs fromUzbekistan how NGOs work in Hungary. We organized the study tour, they wentto visit all types of NGOs, from big national advocacy organizations who don’taccept money from the government, to social service NGOs who are financedwith government contracts, small labor groups etc. When we had the last daydebriefing I had a déjà vu, because what I saw in their eyes and the wordsthey used to express their feelings, were exactly the way I felt twenty years agowhen I was in a similar study tour in the United States, maybe it was around 1993.Back then I saw what is possible and the breath and richness of civil society andorganizations which were active – and now 16 years on I can say it is possiblein my country. I lived to see that, it is not a wish anymore. Honestly here we areafter 20 years – and I have a little bit of a feeling that we are doing the East Europeanthing, the complaints, the veining, focusing on all the problems. I thinkwe have gone a long way.31

Harnessed and unharnessed energies - time for a new approach to NGOs?Codru Vrabie: If people find a value that is worth promoting and they arevery concerned about, and they have trust in their own ability that they cando something, then they also have the enthusiasm to go all the way and get itdone. That feeling of actually getting the work done, doing something that canchange the world around you in a way that will bring you peace of mind and itis all about the people that get the job done. NGOs are just an instrument thatwill help us to get some money or help us get connected, but it is the individualsand their own concern that actually make this whole thing roll. And if you needfunds – you have access to it, you just have to find the people who are eitherthe concerned as you are or enthusiast as you are.P: In my country, Ukraine, NGOs which protect general democratic values, notconcrete needs as such are being funded from foreign money, this other activismis based on the voluntary base.A diverseeco systemMike Edwards: My conclusion is that civil society is an eco system, just likea natural eco-system where you have many different life forms. Civil societyis strong and healthy, not when all organizations are or do the same things orwhen we all speak with the same voice (because that is never going to happen)but where there is real diversity and where the connections are strongbetween different life forms. NGOs are an important life form in that ecosystemand I would hate for us to forget that and not make the most of it.Nilda Bullain: I would like to pose a warning against the participation fetish,because I think that it is a bit dangerous to simplify the discussion from civil societythrough NGOs to civil society through participation, there is a lot of questionabout what we participate in and how etc, the issue is more complex.Codru Vrabie: If you simply have something to say and do, it is unharnessedenergy from a civic group of some sort, - and you don’t feel you need an NGOs,then don’t create one.Ioana Avadani: Let’s keep in mind that it is the people that are the mainfundament. Civil society, NGOs, non-NGOs, harnessed or unharnessed energies,actually what we are talking about is people and the way they promote,defend or identify their interests. And I think as long as we have people in mind,the values will follow and the organizational form will just happen.32

What is the agenda after EUaccession and what may be theresponse to the crisis?To discuss civil society present and future, there isa need to take a look at the broader political andeconomic context within which civil society actorsoperate. 2 variables shaping the Central and EasternEuropean societies in 2009 are the post-EU-accessionblues and the economic crisis.Open Society Institute - Sofia has producedcomparative policy research carried out in ten post-communist countries, formulatinga couple of open questions: What is the next five years’ policy agenda for the tennew member states? Is the transition over and the EU accession agenda fully accomplished- or there is still “unfinished business” to be done? Full report Some major pointspresented by Assya Kavrakova:I. The findings• Five years, or two and a half, in the case of Bulgaria and Romania, after accession of 10 Centraland Easter European States to the EU, the process of transition of these countries is still not completed.CEE states continue to deal with the “unfinished business” of their transition agenda in thecontext of EU membership and the global economic and financial crises.• The “unfinished business” in these countries concern mainly the policy areas of national competence:political systems, social, educational, health reforms and sustainable economic development,which have been relatively neglected by decision-makers in the pre-accession period for thesake of the specific accession agenda.• The EU accession agenda did not coincide with the transition agenda, the latter being much larger.Moreover, part of the “unfinished” transition agenda nowadays has been the result of the constantshift of focus of reforms towards the requirements of the European accession.• The biggest challenges in the post accession period concern the political system, characterizedby fragmentation of existing political parties and appearance and disappearance of new ones,temptation to employ populism and nationalism as well as low and diminishing level of citizens’ trustin the institutions of representative democracy.• Deficiencies in the political domain have predetermined a framework where fragmented politicalparties with short-term political success are unable to commit to long-term and consistent reformsin the policy spheres that are of crucial importance for the citizens e.g. health, education, socialprotection and social inclusion, thus leaving those structural reforms largely incomplete.II. The challenges• The economic and financial crisis is posing additional challenges, there is a risk that catching-upwill be reversed in most of the countries due to economic slowdown and currency depreciation.The crisis has exposed the vulnerability of public finances and is challenging the sustainability ofeconomic development, diminishing some of the gains that accession has contributed to the economicconvergence of the new member states with the old ones.• Lack of progress in areas of citizens’ concern might further increase the mistrust in the political establishmentscausing already fragile political systems to become increasingly vulnerable.• The membership leverage has so far had limited impact on the “unfinished business” of the transitionagenda during the post accession period. In the political domain, EU safeguards against extremismin politics are achieved through exercising peer pressure and implementing European policies, butthere is no EU leverage specifically designed to remedy political shortcomings.33

• In the uncompleted spheres of reform such as health, education, social protection and pensionsthe membership leverage – to the extent that it exists – is insignificant and ineffective as these areentirely national competences.III. The way ahead• The one potentially effective membership leverage on the new member states is the Euro areaaccession, as most countries are willing to do necessary efforts in order to qualify for the Euro. Therequirements for adopting the Euro provide for prudent macroeconomic policies thus contributingto the sustainability of public finances. Meanwhile, the prospects for introducing the Euro in eightof the new EU members of CEE are still unclear and this limits the impact. Determining clear criteriafor European Exchange Rate Mechanism II membership or alternatively allowing automatic entryfor all new member states and then careful monitoring for fulfillment of the Maastricht criteria willincrease its effectiveness in safeguarding public finances during the crises.• A successful completion of the “unfinished business” of the transition agenda in the ten new memberstates would NMS require ensuring stable political systems with mature political parties, conductingand accomplishing long-term structural reforms in the policy spheres of citizens’ concern- social, healthcare and educational fields - assuring functioning institutions of representative democracythat are trusted by the citizens, creating sustainable long-term economic developmentand safeguarding public finances.• Unlike in the pre-accession period, when the EU played a major role in determining the developmentin CEE through the imposing the accession agenda, after accession it is up to each countryto develop its own road map for accomplishing the transition agenda. This will very much dependupon the capacity of national stakeholders to administer reforms from the driver’s seat. As this capacitydiffers from country to country, its development on a national level will determine the winnersfrom the laggards in the CEE region in middle-term prospective.~~~~The economic think-tank INEKO was invited to the Civil Society Forum to reflect on thecurrent economic crisis and how this may affect the work of CEE civil society. Some pointsmade by Peter Golias:How may the current economic change the environment in which civil society works:1. Economical and societal developments:A. Falling foreign demand and industrial productionB. Outflow of Foreign Direct InvestmentsC. Falling exchange rates, more expensive loans in foreign currency (Hungary)D. Growing unemployment and social tensionsE. Growing public finance deficit, tendency to hide public debt (PPP projects)2. Political developments:Growing popularity of extremists threatens democracy, populists who do not solve problems because itis difficult and/or unpopular to implement reforms try to escape into extremism. Extremist notions leadsto social tensions and signs of public unrest and xenophobia: e.g. recent attacks on the Roma minorityin Hungary and Czech Republic, anti-Roma protests in Slovakia, growing tension between Hungary andSlovakia etc.3. Financial developments:Decreasing support from local private sponsors who face falling profits and cut down their support forthe civil society34

How should civil society react? What are the challenges highlighted by the crisis?1. Economy and society: Identifying real problems and promoting real solutionsA. Short-term measures – consolidation of public finances, sustaining countries’ competitiveness,help to vulnerable people (unemployed, disadvantaged, poor, etc.)B. Long-term structural reforms – sustainability of public finances, improving business environment,privatization, transparency, pensions, health, education, etc.2. Politics: Fight against populism and extremism, e.g. through:A. Public educationB. Monitoring promises and their fulfillment, explaining whether promises are good or badC. Fact-checking of arguments presented in media (facts work better than experts who canbe attacked by populists)D. Showing (potential) brutal impact of extremism on innocent people, etc.3. Sponsors:A. Focusing on non-private funding (i.e. government, EU, etc.)B. Focusing on low-cost projects dealing with immediate (short-term) problemsC. Using in-kind support (such as voluntary work, free expert capacity of local private firmsand/or municipalities)35

Inspiring active citizensWhat triggers or blocks the involvement of individualcitizens in public life, how can civil society activistsreach out and mobilize others? Do we rely on theinvolvement of the active, or do we work to engagepassive citizens - and how can this be done effectively?Volunteerism is a fundamental aspect of civil society,however getting it to work is tricky in todays’ rapidlychanging societies.

Inspiring active citizensCivil societyis notshrinkingModerator Christina Rigman (Mod): We are talking about activating citizensand our main question is: Is civic activism shrinking or reshaping? After wethink we know almost everything we can about the present we will take a lookto the future: what can we do as of now to influence how things will look in 20years time? What are we doing about this? (By “WE” meaning civil society organizationsbut also “US” as individuals.) What motivates people to participate?Participant (P): I’m not sure why shrinking and reshaping are the only options,what about increasing? Maybe, it’s just the Hungarian experience but there isWhen you this thing called critical mass in Hungary that is getting bigger every year. 50,000feel the issuebikers is what they claimed participated in one protest. To look at answer whator feel youmotivates people to participate, in the case of critical mass which is a bike protest;it’s just that people feel the issue. There are enough people who are bik-can make adifference youare more likely ing who feel the issue around the biking. So, when an issue is close to you, youto act are more likely to take action. When you feel you can make a difference, youare more likely to take action. There is also the whole “party” attitude. Also, Ibelieve, the LGBT protest, the gay-pride protest in Budapest, is getting stronger.P: I would support reshaping, too, but actually I would support them both –shrinking and reshaping, both are happening. The critical mass is a very goodexample it’s part of the reshaping because it is a very simple and clear issue,which is able to gather many people and take those people out onto thestreets - even those who wouldn’t have done it before. It also manages to bringpeople who were interested before but who have had disappointments. It’sgood because the reshaping is that many people who define politics accordingto its bad reputation, might go into activities which are not directly definedas political, critical mass is also political but not in the same way. For example,anti-globalization movements around the turn of 2000, they were expanding, Ithink there’s some energy.Mod: OK, so we have supporters for increasing and reshaping.P: When you say shrinking or reshaping it’s presumably in comparison to somethingelse, some national ideal high point of civic activism in the region that isnow receding? So, what is the high point notionally, is there one?Mod: This is a good question for scholars, there has been a discussion in thetheoretical field that there isn’t a particular amount of participation that doesgood or bad for democracy, it’s just the participation in itself that is needed. Idon’t think we have a reference point, it’s just based on our own feeling andit is connected to the future, do we think it will reshape or shrink within the next15 to 20 years?P: [From academic research] I’ll tell you what is shrinking is people participatingin elections and in the political process, but this is not civil society and civilsociety is not shrinking at all. What are shrinking are protests, the willingness ofpeople to participate in public actions. If we want a starting point, if we compareto socialist period, then it’s expanding, it’s really reshaping as well as expanding.If we think of it as political activity, then it is shrinking, so it’s a matterof perspective.P: For me, the reference point would be when the changes began in the early37

Inspiring active citizensA lost battleto motivatepeople?SMScharity andFacebookgroups1990s, when you could see more people taking to the streets and demonstratingabout everything: wanting change, wanting new governments, wantingnew social agendas etc. This is where I suppose Americans and other Westerners,saw a little bit of sparkle in our region and said: ”Well, this is where democracycan be grown from scratch”. Whether they were right or wrong, I don’tknow, but currently, I think there’s a very low level of active participation at thegrassroots level. When you look at local organizations in small places, they’rereally struggling to motivate people to do anything, I don’t know what the reasonis. One of the reasons could be, that in the beginning (again in the 1990s)there was money given to NGOs to activate people, to keep them going andget them involved. Now big donors are moving away and people are not seeingthe real motif to get involved. The real challenge would be for local NGOsto actually prove to people around them, to their constituencies, that there’sa cause to fight for. Increasingly that looks like a lost battle. Perhaps, we shouldtalk to donors about rethinking their strategies if donors are actually shapingagendas, if they still can do it, they should put their cards on activating people,local people.P: I totally agree that the reference point has to be the beginning of the changes,the so called velvet revolution, when people hoped that there would beenormous change. So, they went onto the squares, fighting for a different wayof life, they had a common cause. Now we are facing a totally different situation,I would label it reshaping, not shrinking because it’s different, we arefacing the appearance of small, diversified groups, which have specific interestsand defend very specific causes. I am afraid that we are still obsessedwith these normative concepts of what civic action should be, enormous protests,common political good and so on. No we are facing something different- a normalization of civic activities. For instance, recent surveys about the SMScharity in Bulgaria show that people are just give money by sending SMS to differentcauses. It’s a civic activity but it doesn’t fit our frame. Also, the causes wesee on the Facebook, there are a lot of people gathering there and discussing.They debate on their own, probably in small forums and not with publiclyshared values but they debate! This is very important because they share engagement.I think that we shall more and more observe this appearance ofsmall groups using different ways of expressing civic acts, and we should besensitive towards them not just putting them aside from the point of view ofNGO activism or large political protests.P: As a grantmaker organization representative, I could maybe answer yourposition. We are looking at this civic activism, not by amount of initiatives thatappear, but by the result it creates. That’s the most important thing I guess forNot a grantmaker. In Lithuania, I just can see what’s happening, there are differentNGOs, different causes, different informal groups who have their own smallnumbers -results interest groups and fight for their own causes. This diversity is very good but thefinal result is the most important, and only a few of them are really constructiveand productive. When you have restrictions, then you have protests becausesomeone wants to be free. And now that we have this democracy and we arefree to express ourselves, now what? What can we do to inspire people to reallybe constructive and oriented towards the results? Not only supporting as manyas we can but actually less but stronger initiatives.P: Two words like hope and frustration can be two motivations of why people38

Inspiring active citizensSigns ofpeople losinghopeP: So, what are we doing about this? My impression is that there is no shortageof people who want to volunteer, we have more people than we can manageourselves, who want to volunteer in our region. I remember from my previousposition when I was working with human rights, we advertised a volunteerNo shortage position making clear that we wanted someone to work for free and do pressof volunteers officer work for us. We had 50 applicants - 50 people who wanted to volunteer,it might have been because they were motivated by different things: somepeople may have wanted it on their CVs etc - but there are more than enoughpeople out there who want to volunteer. So, do we know how to handle volunteers?We should also make a distinction between volunteering and getting5000 people out on the street, that is not so easy at all, but trying to find volunteersis not difficult.More peerdrive, lessleadersare active. What I see in the area where I work is that because of the actionsof the political parties, many people don’t have this kind of hope. Last week,for example, the mayor of our neighborhood resigned, we have a local newspaperand we went on to the street and asked people: “OK, now we will havenew elections because the mayor resigned, what do you want from the nextmayor? What do you think is the most important issue that the next mayor hasto work with?” And people said they don’t want to answer, they are not interestedand they don’t care anymore because the next person, whoever it willbe, will just steal money and do nothing. So, they don’t even want to touch onthis political participation agenda.Mod: we should try to focus more on the other kinds of participation.P: What is reshaping is not the amount of activism, but the reasons leading toactivism. I think participation can be a result either of enthusiasm or of frustration.In the early 1990s one could build activism on people’s enthusiasm andinspire people to go to vote or to research their public officials, now probablyone can rather build activism on people’s frustrations. As a result, activism isgoing more towards either keeping public officials accountable or to other lesspolitical areas such as environmental causes, or like the example of the movementstarted by people using bicycles.P: Compared to the 1990s; today’s civic activism is a lot more peer driven andthere are not so many formal leaders as it used to be in the 90s. This explainsalso the greater diversity of causes because virtually everyone can becomethe leader of a cause and to start an own group on Facebook, and afterwardsgo into the streets if the situation requires such action. We observe this in manydifferent spheres, at least in Bulgaria, starting from ecology and going to gayand lesbian movements etc. We observe a lot of action with people who gettogether for a cause which is close to them, not necessarily led by some politicalor formal NGO leader, but just people with common interests. The leadersare somehow generated by the process and that’s why I would call it a peerdriven process. I wouldn’t say it’s outside of politics, as Milla mentioned, becausethe personal is political as we know. It’s probably outside of the politicalparties’ actions but it’s not outside of politics.P: We can’t say that we are not talking about politics and political action, itmay not be about voting, but it’s actually political participation. If you send aletter, or an e-mail, or make a call, or join a cause directed at politics - actually39

Inspiring active citizensTechnologyhelps outreachBondingvolunteeringor bridgingvolunteering?also the environmental topicsare political just like all theothers. The question is, howto get this activism becausethere is trend of people saying:“Yeah, we are not interested,the politics are not doinganything anyway so whysign a card, there is no use.”- how can we actually activatecitizens to take this stepto get this mass of activists?Maybe it’s our communicationthat is wrong, but I don’tsee a solution.P: An important note to highlightthe importance of technology,relatively recentlyeven during the Americanpresidential elections andthe elections in Moldova, technology has been playing an extremely importantrole in motivating and reaching out to citizens. It’s free, easy to use and it’s reshapinghow citizens and become more active in their local communities. I wastempted to respond to whether or not the donors can impose strategic prioritiesand begin to think strategically where they want their funding to go - I’m afirm believer that it’s important to leave it up to the indigenous organizations toidentify where their priorities are, it would be our mistake to think that we knowthe local scenery and the local environment better than they do.P: There are different dimensions according to which one can understand differentforms of civic action or volunteering, and one is distinguishing betweenbonding and bridging volunteering. Bonding volunteering is when your mainmotivation is to help people of your own social group, and bridging volunteeringis when your main motivation is to help people beyond your own socialgroup, both of which are valid and good. Another one mentioned is the differencebetween the frustration motivation and the enthusiasm motivationwhich I think, looking back over the last 20 years, is quite important. Perhaps thefrustration motivation began in 1998 or something, or ’99, and in 1990 a moreenthusiasm motivation, perhaps in ’91, ’92. A third dimension perhaps more importantthan all of those, is the difference between the perceived immediateneed and the kind of timeless motivation because you’ve always done it, akind of transcendent motivation. If you’re trying just to activate people hopingthat they will right now perceive the need which you see as absolutely pressing,maybe people just don’t see it like that. You can look e.g. reactions toChernobyl in particular in Western Europe, people perceived it to be a massivepressing disaster, or climate change nowadays. Certainly people don’t do itfor fun, they get involved because they see it as being an enormous pressingneed. If you’re trying to motivate volunteers or activists, it may be useful to thinkalong these three dimensions, which are the individual people you’re trying toappeal to, where are they standing right now? Then there’s the point of howare you trying to attract people, it’s something that can help overcome some-40

Inspiring active citizensP: Whenever we manage to bring successful stories in front of people, this buildsSuccess issome trust in their power to bring about change. It worked also for the groupthe best PR that becomes the success story, because they wanted to do more. I think, thisis a good approach.Firstpriorityis to getpeopleonboardthing that is frustrating to them, or because it’s kind of fun to be part of?P: In terms of motivating people, to act, to be active, I would like to give a specificexample from our experience as an organization: one thing that motivatespeople to act is to be sure that their voice is heard and it might really changesomething.P: In the Bulgarian context I do think that the first step should be about engagingpeople not about activating them. Once you have people on board, withtheir thinking, with their readiness, with their motivation, then it is not that difficultto trigger them into doing something, trigger them into action. I think engagingpeople is incredibly difficult, however, especially now when there aren’t manyprograms which encourage civic education. This is difficult because there is thisunderstanding both by external donors and by our own government, that wehave passed this phase where we talk about democracy and about citizens’participation. No, we haven’t, we’re still there. We’re not ready to take thatsecond step, and try to solve bigger problems in our society such as education,health, whatever. I think that civil society is not ready to make that big stepbecause before we can do that we need to motivate people, we need to engagethem and I think this is where our priorities should be.Corruption isfloweringHave we lostthe culture ofconversation?P: In Romania about two years ago, there was a big debate about redirecting2% of the income taxes, to associations and NGOs. Many people, even mymother, couldn’t see the advantage of this simple action; she couldn’t understandwhy does she have to do this? I agree with you, people don’t understandwhy they have to be active and why they have to help others and they arestill thinking, Easterners especially, where corruption flowers, that everybody isstealing.P: About culture of citizenship and talking about engagement I think we shouldgo deeper than that. I think we’ve lost a culture of conversation. I’m listening toall of you and I’m sort of an outsider to civil society, to be engaged it has to beabout a question that matters to these people. You were talking about BarackObama, the power of his technology almost disappeared when he becamepresident. What about sustainability of engagement, it is very nice to have aconversation and people are getting very excited about something but in threemonths if there is nothing, the energy is not there anymore. His great challengeis whether he can keep people involved. The engagement issue is super importantbut you also have to create spaces in which engagement can happen.If you’re going to have a conversation, you have to listen very carefully to thepeople with whom you are having the conversation and decide who should bein that room strategically so that the conversation is diverse.P: There is an apathy that has happened over the past 15 years, there wassome engagement and energy but then things didn’t happen the way peoplewere hoping and that’s what we are facing now. I was looking at the sessiontitle (mission possible) and my first question was “What mission?” If we are not41

Inspiring active citizensActivism forwhat?The problemis that peopledont think theycan achievesomethingable to say what our goal is in 10 years and look at what we want from this activism- how are we going activate people? We will never be able to activateanybody, if people don’t have an idea of where it is we are going - it is activismfor what? Just for the sake of activism? The goal is to get to the point where wedon’t have to do this. We have to start from: How do we get there?” “How dowe activate ourselves and people around us to get to where we want to be?”P: I don’t think that people do not feel engaged; the problem is that they donot believe that they can achieve something - so the point is whether our messagewill be heard. The problem with these small groups on Facebook or othersdiscussing and debating their own needs and issues is that they don’t know towhom to address their message and they do not believe that they should getan answer. Our problem is how to push the institutions to answer them. I don’tbelieve it’s a matter only of educating people, of course it’s important pushing,but this activating andengaging them for me islike the communists puttingconsciousness in theheads of the poor masses.I hate this discourse.We could try, everyoneof us who feels engagedin some cause to pushinstitutional reform, whenthere is a petition messageeven of Facebook,the institution to which itis addressed should answer.It’s a matter of institutionalreform and it’sa matter of institutionalizinga specific mechanismof e-governmentand e-democracy, becausethis is the future,these debates on theinternet.Too pushy?Missing thegoal?P: Two things: the first one is results and the other one is trust. I would say thatour society as a whole and also us as civil society have come to a stage wherewe are also results oriented: we have to do this in the next half a year becausethe donor, partner or the grant says it; we have to rise 15% of the civic engagementuntil year 2009 e.g. Because of that we are rushing and trying to achievethe goal and the result - that we actually miss it. Because if you go to the basichuman nature level, I think that people feel when you want to push them intosomething and this is why your mother may have said: “Why should I give this2%?” because she might have felt that civil society is pushing her “Give us moneyand we will do something with it!”. I think this is where the trust comes in, thehuman trust. I would say that civil society would be more successful if we wouldset a goal and try to achieve it in the long term. If you’re doing something longterm, people notice you and you can acquire more trust from people. If you’redoing something for 6 months, you’re just getting the PR’s message out and42

Inspiring active citizensMod: I picked up a few points about empowerment and results, which I thinkare important considerations. What is the result of the participation? Becausethe result has a very high motivating power. If people see the result they wouldfeel more empowered to participate and to sustain the participation. How dowe as civil society organizations make the results known and use them to motivatepeople to come back and involve themselves again? Then about capac-What do wedo with people ity, there are many people who want to volunteer, but what do we do withcoming to our them if they come to our organization? We have to think of a solution, either toorganization empower people to organize themselves or to have better collaboration withwishing to get institutions which can take part of the participation that we cannot manage.involved? We have to do something about it. Then the pressing needs and the long term,as you were saying. I mean that the discussion about global warming has beengoing on for a long time, but it was just picked up by people and became amotivating factor and turned into a pressing need when we saw that things arereally changing. Maybe we have to present things in such a way that peoplewill understand that this will become a pressing need, even if it just seems like ascholarly conclusion of some article at this point. Then education, which is veryimportant, it may be that instead of putting all our efforts into getting people toparticipate, we can put our efforts in getting the proper education for people.Everything is connected to us and what we can do about it.If is powerfulwhen westudentsmake itourselvesthe project is over. We should come back to our roots, become more humanand do long term projects and smaller projects. As a media (institution) weobserve civil society and everybody wants to change the world. Why wouldn’tyou change your neighborhood and do it long term?P: I have a question: how many of the people in this room ask their audiencethat they’re trying to engage what they want to talk about? How many use audienceresearch to determine what you’re going to be doing with your time?P: In Lithuania we have only few initiatives by NGOs who are doing this civicsociety education and discussions for pupils in schools which are very important.For the future generation my personal opinion is that the first gun againstall the problems is education. Nazism, low civic engagement or participation isall lack of education, and when people realize what impact it can have theycan think and just act. Otherwise brainwashing and convincing them, affectingtheir opinions is not effective. The person has to come up with it by him or herselfso education is really very important.P: We are students and we make this event for students where we talk aboutfreedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of media and so on. Weinvite people that we think are important to share their opinions and talk withthe students and after these meetings people from the public tell us: “Yeah, itwas very good, I learnt a lot and I think it is very beautiful that you do it here”.These people came the next year and expect from us more and more and theyfeel engaged. I think that when we students make this, not only the institutionsor the Ministry of Education, it is maybe more powerful. We are the same asthem and we can see the hope they have.P: It is very important how we organize this education because now in Bulgaria,for example, there are programs for civic education in schools which are officiallyimplemented. When we developed our last project related to civic edu-43

Inspiring active citizensReshapingthequestionsSelf-confidenceLearningby doingcation we realized that in all of the cases some people usually from the Ministryof Education, said: “People in schools have to study this or that in order to begood citizens, for example you have to know how the European Union works”.We went to the children at school and just asked them: “What do you want toknow about the society?” and simply the answer was:: “What is this institutionfor, and how does it work for me personally?”. When we reshaped the questionwe realized that there is no need to activate people, they’re active, we didn’tneed to go and push them to participate in this or that but just reshaping thequestion made them active. There should be civic education, but we have tobe clear that it shouldn’t be the old way of: “let’s make a test and check thisand that”, it doesn’t work and it’s contra productive.P: I think one of the elements of education is not just the subject, but to giveself-confidence in any kind of activity. I would also be careful with this myth thatonly educated people can be very good citizens and defining what is good orbad. It’s not quite that easy, for example in Hungary there is this right-wing partywhich just got into the European Parliament, and one of their supporters is anorganization of medical doctors, which shows that well-educated people aresupporting an extreme-right party.P: My point was not that only educated peoplecan be good citizens, but my point was when youknow then you can do something with your knowledge.P: An educational psychologist says that ways toreally learn for long time are experimental andlearning by doing. Just teaching people in classroomsabout what civil society is won’t have anykind of long term impact at all, if they don’t experiencethe values of civil society. So, it should belearning by doing, active participation.Mod: How will civic activism look in the next 15 to20 years? Will it be just as it is now, or will it be different?How will it be different, will people participate more in e-governance anduse more technology or will they do it the traditional way? And where are we,the civil society organizations?The roleof civilP: I looked at the questions and I was thinking what I’d like to see and what civilsociety is the society’s role would be to make that happen. For me civic activism is peoplefacilitator engaging in their everyday like and making a difference, basically empoweredto make a difference in their own communities. The role of civil society in thatchange would be to be a facilitator in an empowering role. I would see civil societyhelping the communities get to this stage where there is this participatorydemocracy happening in their society and facilitating the process that’s whereI’d like to see us in 20 years.P: I think NGOs should also work with the public institutions to be sure that theyare open for citizens’ participation.P: The point is how to get there in the future, because the active citizens you al-44

Inspiring active citizensInstitutionsguaranteedemocraticprinciplesMassive splitsand tensionsinside whatwe call civilsocietyAre wesettinga goodexample?ready have, the volunteers, the people who are coming already, it’s just aboutkeeping the relationship. The problem is that if we want participatory democracy,then how to make it closer to the mainstream mass? We’re trying differentthings but it is still not working ideally.P: Let’s not dream about the future, let’s think about how it will really be becauseit’s very tempting to say: “everybody will be happy and participate” butlet’s try to keep it real, ok?P: Going back to reality, t won’t be so easy getting rid of public institutions, weshouldn’t forget that together with groups which are self-organizing for commongood, there are other groups which are also self-organizing very effectivelybut for some other causes e.g. extremist, nationalist, radical groups. They existtoday and they show us how effective they can be when they want to opposesomething. I think these groups will not disappear in the future when educationincreases and civic education is more effective, unfortunately. The questionwould be how to balance and counterbalance their action, and this is thecontinuous role of institutions as a guarantee of the democratic principles in society.In the future I expect even greater diversification of civic activists, havingin mind that they will be both positively-minded groups and negatively-mindedor groups which are defending extremist causes which we don’t consider partof a good society, but they are eventually part of democracy.P: I think it’s a very good point, sometimes you can’t predict the future becauseit means so much shaping by all kinds of things that we have no control over,whether they are environmental problems, political or geopolitical changes.And what is getting to us right now is climate change and the need to get moreenergy from alternative energy sources. It’s happening already, grass-roots citizens’movements are making a major road block on the way to renewableenergy by blocking these kinds of things [wind farms and lower tech energysourcing in local communities]. I think you’re too simplistic by saying the goodcivil society and the bad civil society, I can see a very high possibility of massivesplits and tensions inside what we call civil society.P: A very important role of the civil society and NGOs is to control the mentionedinstitutional reform, for example, in Poland we do have quite good lawthat doesn’t seem to work and it’s really important especially on the local level.It’s obvious that participation is the future, but we need change and evolutionof the institutions to be sure that the people and institutions do have the tools tomake it right and that they can use it.P: I believe that civil society needs to stand up and speak their message strongand firmly; we should make a stand as opinion makers and leaders and do it ina charismatic way. Our NGO function as a form of media, and what happenswhen we take the camera to NGOs asking “Say what you have to say!” - theyare afraid! How can we support active citizenship and expect for people toeducate themselves in this area if we are not an example for them? We haveto become opinion makers and charismatically address the people.P: Young people need examples, not just ideas and that’s what I would liketo see in civil society, not just nice ideas but actually building something. I’mworking in an environmental NGO, we have fantastic protests, strong lobby etc,45

Inspiring active citizensWe needpeople - notjust throughconsultingthem, butallowingthem tobe part ofdecisionmakingSupporteach otherbeforeexpectingothers tojoinbut, for example, 30,000 persons in Budapest could start to build a bicycle roadthemselves, not just asking for it. We have to start not just spreading the ideas,but really to build something.P: In relation to your question: “What could we be doing in 20 years time orhopefully less?” I think, and this is a slightly controversial point, that NGOs andthe third sector more generally, should be professionalizing itself more than itis doing it now. The reason for this is that more and more it is getting in contactwith officials, governments, with people who steer the legal apparatus, theprofessional apparatus etc. These people come up with arguments that arewell-thought out, even scholarly at times, and if you don’t have the expertisein the third sector you are very weak, you don’t have the tooth to respond toat that level. Having more professionals in NGOs I think is a good step forward.It doesn’t mean that ordinary citizens don’t have a role in NGOs, on the contrary,but we’re talking about different levels of communication. The other thingis the need to involve communities and ordinary citizens in NGOs more thanwhat we’re doing now, it may sound banal but participation is the key word.Finding the tools to get people into the structure of NGOs, allowing them in,not only listening to them in a sort of consultation, but allowing them to takea real stake in what we’re doing, to be part of the decision-making processand of the action. Another key word is partnerships understood in very broadterms, you could think of coalitions and grouping together more informally, butthe more involved in partnership structures non-governmental organizationsbecome, the more powerful they will be. And I’m meaning trying to reach outto different fields of expertise. We should listen to each other, understand whateverybody does, get together, act together. Finally on the donor’s role, I takeyour point that donors should be flexible and allow the NGOs to determine theiragendas, but bear in mind that there are other donors - the governments - thatare pushing the sector into something that they don’t want to do. Unless thereis this other side where the civic side of NGOs is encouraged, they will all startdoing social work and what is determined by the EU and lose sight of what theycan do otherwise.P: If we start talking about donors, I think NGOs have to create the programand then looking for donors who fund the things that we are doing, not the oppositeway. About professionalization it is also about credibility. In the future theconnection among NGOs has to grow closer, and we have to support eachother first among ourselves, then we can expect others to join in. If we don’tunderstand the problems other NGOs are addressing, how do we expect somecompletely different people to understand it and get involved?Being clearto donorsP: I’m struggling with this one-kind-of-side-fits-all conversation. Just to be veryclear, when we are talking about whatever future action, we need to be specificbecause in each country it is going to be very, very different. The region isso diverse, in one country NGOs have no problem to you give a clear accountto media and in another country they have a problem to be open to mediaand so on. There has to be a very engaged discussion from both sides and notbeing afraid to push donors, it is possible to tell them: “No, this is not what weneed to be doing”. The more civil society has that ownership of what needs tobe done, the more we can reshape donor agendas.P: I’m really afraid of seeing the third sector as professionals, professional citizens46

Inspiring active citizensEnglish hasbecome themain capitalof being anactive citizenNGOs willdisappear?is the most terrible thing I can imagine for the future and I hope that the thirdsector will become more citizen than professional and I hope they will have lessconnection with each other, but more connections with their communities. Thefirst NGOs [in this region] were professional English speaking, usually translatorsactually and English became the main capital of being active, being a citizen,being part of the civil sector as well as a very good job opportunity. I hopethat in the future the third sector will go back to the volunteering activities, tobuilding communities; creating social bonds in its neighborhood, let’s leave the[global] world aside.P: We are speaking of the internet generations, in 20 years, today’s studentswill be 30-40 years old. Civic engagement will happen on the internet, publicsphere will be different. I do believe that the battle will be between the officialpoints of view of different institutions, and many, many points of view whichwill appear on the internet. The point is whether they will clash and or there isa chance of institutionalizing this dialogue. Every politician has a blog and explainshow important he is, but the point is that they have to react to differentmessages. The future society will be a very, very diversified society with a lot ofmessages. People on Facebook or on the internet in general discuss global andpersonal issues, there are strong defenders of nationalism, but on Facebookpeople will probably discuss global problems in transnational discussions. Whocontrols the public sphere will be very real issue; this is another battle we shallexpect. I hope that NGOs will disappear because everybody will take careof his own work and we shall witness different ad-hoc groups which strugglefor their cause at that moment and hopefully we can try to institutionalize themechanisms of this dialogue.In 15-20 yearsit will be verysimilar to nowStructuralfundsP: At the risk of sounding very banal, I suspect civic activism in 15 to 20 yearswill be very similar to what it looks like now. Professional NGOs, increasinglyprofessional NGOs, good links and poor links, strong and weak links amongorganizations, and between organizations and citizens. It will be nice if communitiesdivorce from NGOs, and become more actively engaged to resolvethings around themselves. Where do you turn when you have a problem? Thelast woman [of the Forum street poll] said: “I turn to my neighbors, the residentgroup. I had a problem they resolved it, and I’ll do it again”. For me that’s civicactivism and the professionalization of NGOs is not civic activism, but it’s a partof the whole spectrum of players and actors. Technology is going to be different,procedures are going to be different and the opportunities for civil organizationsor for others to engage, to act, to communicate and to link may be verydifferent, but ultimately I just expect that the conditions are going to be verysimilar to what we see now. The same discussioncan take place in Bratislava or in Bucharestor in Tashkent in 20 years and I think theywill be discussing very similar things.P: A potential threat that we are seeing inRomania which could reduce the role ofNGOs as facilitators for public participation,is that we have many NGOs relying on andhoping for structural funds. Structural fundsare managed by the government, and havingfinancial resources only from structural47

Inspiring active citizensDirect goalsand smallissuesNGOsdoing whatgovernmentshould dofunds in fact means to implement the government agenda - which is not bad.It’s bad, however, if an NGO reduces itself to that because citizens participationor activism or agitating people is not on the government agenda. I seemany NGOs who used to watchdog and to advocate for different causes noware organizing trainings using structural funds - easier resources, easier projectsand forgetting their mission.P: I just have a question: “How many of the countries can vote in public electionsby internet? The point is yes, technology plays an important role and it is afact. Today they’re serving more like a way of communication, a tool to communicate.Now what could be done for this e-democracy?P: Identification is not a problem at all [for eDemocracy] it’s a technical problem.We are facing more political problems because the government doesn’twant electronic voting and electronic participation, it is a political problem.P: The question of funding came up a lot, of course it’s an important issue buttwo comments: our organization which is originally a green organization but wedo a lot of community action and media programs as well, applied for differentprojects this year and I think we won only with two programs mainly supportingthe institution itself, make research on how our work could be better. It is notfor a direct cause, but for the organization itself, The other thing I wanted tosay, perhaps connected to it, is that we talk about values and also in Hungarydiscussions are too much about some kind of values, connected to emotionalproblems and feelings of fear, aggression and I think this takes things in a baddirection. Finding direct goals and small issues is a way to get out of this problem,an example from our local neighborhood project the best element beinga flea market. People bring things from home and exchange them, volunteersare there to help out, it’s a zero cost action and it started to generate local activity,people meet there and they not only exchange goods, but informationetc, so, it’s not only about the funds.P: I have some fears about the present, for me civic activism is part of the NGOsand the third sector, but nowadays many NGOs are taking up roles that governmentshould do. They are getting governmental funds for doing it and theseNGOs who might have started in small villages as real civic activist initiation, arenow becoming too professional so that the civic part disappeared.Moderator: To very quickly draw some conclusions and last comments.What about thosewho have neverheard about theinternet?P: I think that that phenomenon of organizations becoming increasingly professionalis very probable. You can also say that 15 years ago organizations, thisis something that the Mott Foundation was responsible for, turned into NGOresource centers and evolved into professional administrative bodies. Is thatan ideal outcome? Perhaps not. Is it an ideal outcome for organizations to becomegovernment contractors? Perhaps not. Will they be replaced by otherorganizations that will emerge with a mission to fill the gap? I think so.P: A comment about e-democracy, in a country like Romania there are about7 million people who never heard about the internet, who don’t know what anNGO is or even what the Parliament is. I think that’s where civic activism mustgo have a total approach.48

Inspiring active citizensConfident onlyin cyber spaceP: I expect further dislocation between the public reality, physical reality so to- not in real say and the virtual reality, the cyberspace. There are a lot more cyber-basedlife? groups which interact very actively, than groups who meet and to somethingin reality. Many people feel quite confident to interact in cyberspace, but theynever meet in person and never undertake action. I’m expecting in the next 15- 20 years that this tendency will be much stronger. In a way the physical publicsphere will not correspond entirely to the virtual public sphere and there will bedifferent kinds of activism.P: I believe that, no matter if we like it or not, we are going to shape the presentand also the future. Our focus and actions today and tomorrow will determineour common future, and civil society’s future.Mod: It is very positive to take the responsibility on our shoulders.49

Citizens and PoliticsAre the ballot box and perfectly organised campaignsby well established NGOs the only ways for citizensto take part in the national political decisions?What about spontaneous groups, innovative ideascirculating in the blogosphere or YouTube, tweetingIranians, online petitions and Facebook groups? Arewe heading towards a global citizens republic? Willtodays generation of English speaking technologyusers change the way politics works? Or will the worldsplit into two halves – millions of activists and billions ofpassive citizens? The meeting space between citizensand politics is very often an area for civil society andcivic engagement.

Citizens and PoliticsModerator Julian Popov (Mod): I personally don’t know what exactly willhappen with these recordings; probably they will be put in a box and buriedunder the factory to be taken out in 15 or 50 years. I went once to Chelyabinsktractor factory, this use to be the biggest tractor factory in the world which wasalready collapsing in Chelyabinsk it was 1998, and they took me to a museumand in front of the museum there was a wall with a capsule inside and a messagefrom Leonid Brezhnev supposed to be opened by the Komsomolsk youthof Chelyabinsk in 2048 I think. The factory was privatized by a Bulgarian guy, Iwas very proud of that, and I asked “how did he manage to privatize the biggesttractor factory in the world.” They told me: “he was a businessman, whenwe believed in communism and working for the communist future, he was doingbusiness”. I said: “what kind of business can you possibly do in the SovietUnion in the ’60s and ’70s?” and they said that he was the director of a coachrestaurant in a train for 30 years and managed to save money from tips to buythe biggest tractor factory in the world, which apparently produced 20% of thetanks for World War II.How cancitizensinfluencepolicies?Our subject is Citizens and Politics and we have to define it somehow, one wayto define it would be to explore and discuss the way citizens can develop andinfluence policies, participate in politics and influence political decisions. I likevery much this strong instruction that we should not complain and we shouldnot describe our programs and projects. To make our discussion a bit more fruitfuland specific I took the liberty to ask three speakers to say just a few initialwords based on their experience and views about how individual citizens andsmall groups can organize themselves in order to influence political decisionand politics.He didn’t manageas US Vicepresident- heneeded to start apublic movementParticipant (P): To share my experience with the Climate Project, primarily anAmerican organization but also a global one. Has anyone heard about it? No.(voices from the room) Anyone know The Inconvenient Truth film by Al Gore?(voices from the room) Yes. The film was an unexpected success, the producersnever thought it was going to be a niche film but that there was an overwhelmingsuccess in America and internationally. The idea about the Climate Projectactually came out of the success of that film, and that they could replicate thedirect contact Al Gore had with his audience, with the slide show that the filmis based on. There was training of a thousand volunteers to deliver this inconvenienttruth live to the various audiences from the communities they come from.They announced it in 2006, in the summer 12 000 people volunteered to givethe climate presentation and now this community has grown to over 25 000who have been trained primarily in the United States but also in other countriesin Europe, in Australia, Canada and who have reached millions of people. I findit an interesting example that somebody who was actually the Vice-presidentof the United States, which is a pretty powerful position, who signed the Kyotoprotocol and then came back and was demolished in the Congress and in theSenate - and then realized that for something to really it had to change at theground level. So he shifted to building a movement through this Climate projectwhere there would be enough bottom up critical mass created for the toppoliticians to respond to it. However, Al Gore has a very interesting statement,he says it is important to change the light bulbs - it is essential to change thepolitical framework. While awareness-raising is happening on the ground obviouslythe ambition is to go upwards again. The way I see this whole exercise isabout creating enough political critical mass to enable the change at the top.51

Citizens and PoliticsWhen it comes to climate change and a lot of issues we are concerned about,really we cannot make a sufficient difference unless we change the frameworkof policies, legislation, funding streams on the very top. This in nothing new butI find it very important, that a top politician has learned this lesson and got involvedin this kind of activity.Environmentalistsnot only talkingto themselvesanymoreThe other thing I find also interesting about the Climate project is that normallywith environmental issues, it is the usual suspects that we as environmentaliststalk to, we are often accused of preaching to the converted and we are actuallyresult marginalized because we move around in the same area. What AlGore through his personality managed to propel him to this star position in 2006with the Academy Awards and then the Noble Peace Prize, and in this wayhe managed to create channels into other parts of society which so far wereinaccessible to this message, whether it would be top business leaders, religiousleaders. In the training I participated in in Nashville, we were 200 and therewere all kinds of people, from high school students to retired senators, bankers,athletes a very mixed group. How we can achieve this breakthrough withouthaving the personality and charisma of Al Gore still remains a challenge. butif we want to any kind of critical, meaningful mass, it is not enough if it is justconcentrated in one capsule of the society, it needs to be happening acrossthe spectrum.Mod: I think we’ll manage the charisma of Al Gore, probably that’s not sucha big problem. Now I would like to invite Igor Janke for a very brief recordingfor the future.P: I am journalist and I work basically in traditional media – newspapers as wellas radio, sometimes TV, but three years ago I started to do something on theinternet. It is not so big as Al Gore’s initiative, but is very much about the relationshipbetween citizens and politicians. Three years ago I launched my own blog,at this time it was the first blog launched by a journalist, back then there were7000 bloggers, no blogs and bloggers in Poland, and I was very surprised to see that it was such20 000 a big success, I had about 800 000 visitors monthly to this one single blog. Then Icomments got this idea to do something with it, and I invited 15 different journalists from theand every dayvery left to the very right, among them Slawomir Sierakowski as a radical leftisthundreds ofbut also some radical rightist. We created a platform and I asked everybody tocitizens writingarticlesgive their comments on events going on. At that same time we took the crucialdecision to open it for everybody, anybody could join us and launch their ownblog, and we were surprised because there were thousands of people who didvery fast. Now we have about 7000 bloggers, who have about 20 000 commentatorswriting every day their comments on their blogs. Every day we have atleast 100 to 200 normal articles written by citizens, so we created a place whereprofessionals and non-professionals can meet and discuss politics.We have a group of journalists, a group of politicians and the biggest groupwhich are normal people, scientists, teachers, doctors, and very different peopleliving in different places. All of them have the same rights; they can publishin the same way as very well known politicians or journalists. We also invited severalNGOs and smaller websites to join our platform and have their own blogsso that they can also join the discussion, almost everybody who is speakingabout politics is on this platform. Never before have people had the possibilityto speak to everybody, even 5-10 years ago if somebody who is not a jour-52

Citizens and Politicsnalist, a prominent academic orpolitician wanted to say somethingpublicly, they could write aletter to a newspaper and hada very small chance to be published.Now all people can writeand many of them are as popularas the most well-known journalistsor politicians. We don’t know theirnames, some of them sign theirblogs with their own names butmany use nicknames saying thatthey wouldn’t do it if they didn’thave the possibility to be hidden.Someone is homosexual and isworking in such an environmentthat he wouldn’t like to display it,somebody loves the law and justiceparty and Kaczynski and his office doesn’t like the party so they are afraidToday mediacannot avoid to speak publically etc How it is influencing media? A few years ago mediauncomfortable were able to avoid some subjects because of their policy, business interests etc.topics as theynow if something doesn’t appear in the official media, it will for sure appear inappear in thethe blogosphere. Even if media doesn’t speak about something for one or twoblogospheredays they have to eventually start writing about it when it has appeared in theblogosphere. The most important blogs are written by normal people becausethey are read by politicians who really have to take it into account, it’s the bestfocus-group with a few thousand people who continuously discussing currentissues and it gives citizens a much bigger influence on politics than in the past.Mod: Now we have one more case – Daniela will say talk about how a fewpeople can change or disturb big things.GeopoliticalissuesP: I come from Bulgaria and I manage small NGO that has more of a regionalcharacter in my home city Burgas on the Black sea coast. This is in brief the storyof a referendum. Referenda are rare phenomena in Bulgaria. Bulgaria is theonly country of the last two enlargements that entered the EU without a referendumrelated to accession. It is also a story of civil society in Bulgaria, and theinferiority complex of my nation, we think we can do on our own brilliantly butwe are very bad in collective action and self-organizing. Now, the referendumwas about a Russian pipeline, there is an agreement struck in 2007 betweenBulgaria, Greece and Russia to transport crude oil from Novorossiysk to Alexandropoulosvia Burgas. These types of energy projects are going to dominatethe agenda of the NGO sector on the Balkans as we happen to be in thetransit area between the sources of energy and the market. These projects willdirectly impact human rights and environment and in this insane project oil iscoming from the Caspian Sea in Russia and is loaded on tankers here and theyarrive in Burgas; the oil is unloaded, saved in reservoirs for some time and thentransits down a short pipe it is loaded on another tanker here and goes on tothe West. This project presents great environmental risk because of the technologychose by the Russians, the Black Sea is actually called “black” because itis rough and they want to unload on the open sea and in open ports, howeverthese are specifics and technicalities of the project. The point is that for the first53

Citizens and Politicstime people were self-organizing, coming together. We decided to have thisreferendum and thank God our local government was in line with the people’sagenda and they made an official decision to call a referendum because ourlegislation is not very favorable if people want to initiate it. The referendum wasorganized, 52 000 people of the total population of 200 000 voted and 99% ofthem against the pipeline. Then we had another referendum in a smaller citySozopol and now this year in Pomorie and about 80 000 people in total votedagainst this pipeline. Now we have a new government in Bulgaria which is reconsideringthe project, and I think also the Russians are reconsidering becauseit doesn’t make sense economically, only geopolitically as the Russians probablywant to pass through an old friend’s territory instead of passing throughthe Bosporus. Unfortunately however, we are not encouraged by this, becauseaccording the Bulgarian legislation our referendum in Burgas is not consideredvalid as the 52 000 people only makes 27% of the voters and for the result tocount 50% of the voters have to vote.Directdemocracyis veryimportant asa toolThis might be discouraging to some people but not to everyone, we saw thatthere is strength in our organization, people volunteered to make leaflets, todistribute them, to motivate other people to vote and to be more active as thisrequirement of 50% focused our campaign to make more people vote. Fromnow my organization are going to work on an improvement of the Bulgarianlegislation and one of the points we wish to change is this requirement for 50%quorum. As a conclusion I would like to say that referenda and direct decisionmaking is very important, my example was from Bulgaria, but also on the Europeanlevel it is very important. There is something that is called the Europeancitizens initiative ECI – this is the strive of many European organizations to enforcedwhat was written in the European constitution and now is in the Lisbontreaty about the right of one million European citizens to make proposals tothe European commission which would proceed to the European parliament,giving Europeans the right to make proposals. I personally believe, maybe becauseI am Bulgarian that governments are kleptocratic by nature and peoplehave to have instruments of control. I don’t mean that every decision has to beput on referendum but there have to be mechanisms for checks and balances.Woodrow Wilson once said that referendums and direct decision making issimilar to the gun of a farmer, the normal farmer normally doesn’t need it, butwhenever he sees a threat the gun behind the door can help him save his family.I’ll finish by mentioning that referendums are just one of the possible forms,there is also popular initiative where people don’t wait for someone to ask themwhat they think, but they may initiate a law or a decision. Finally another importantmechanism is the possibility to recall elected politicians; if you are disappointedthey have abused funds or committed crimes, there is no need to waitfor four years, but by collecting signatures you can start a procedure of recall.Mod: I would like to emphasize one of the many points that Daniela brought toour attention, the idea that energy roots and supplies will influence not just politicaldecision and economic development but also obviously affect the futuredevelopment of civil society actions. Not only when these civil society actionsare directly targeting energy projects but also indirectly because energy supplyis vital factor in our societies and part of our economic development. Do youthink that these cases and statements sufficiently well describe the relationshipbetween citizens influencing policies and political decisions? The floor is yours.54

Citizens and PoliticsLets do nothing,the invisiblehand will takecare of itShould Mod: This is quite an interesting and controversial point you’re making,citizens be I would like to ask whether you all agree? First, should citizens campaignfor the changing of legislation and changing the rules of thecampainingto change the game? Then the point about registered voters, people who have registeredtheir votes and expressed their willingness to participate in politi-rules of thegame? cal process during formal elections, are they the only people eligible toparticipate in other forms of citizen initiatives?Politicians arealso citizensIn CEE we havethe expectationthat we can donothingP: As we must think of what we are going to do in the next 10-15-20 years, myopinion is do nothing - the invisible hand will take care of everything. If you don’ttrust this way at least do nothing wrong. Not all politicians are leaders, whatwe need as citizens are to breed leaders otherwise we will never get anythingdone. With the type of platform you are talking about we can bring out whatare the most important issues and maybe even identify the type of leaders weneed to get things done, but I wouldn’t try to change the rules of the gamebecause every time you change the rules of the game you give the crookedpoliticians time to adapt, they are faster than us regular citizens. I would ratherwork on refining our capacity as citizens to bring up the priorities, the most importantissues to be worked on and to breed up the type of leaders that will getthings done and sack the type of politicians that use the rules for their own benefit.Not necessarily change the rules unless it’s really crucial to do so, in terms ofreferendum if you ask me, I wouldn’t drop the 50% requirement but perhaps includeanother requirement and compute that percentage out of thenumber of registered voters. Because there are lots of people who byage or mental facility are allowed to vote but they don’t want to. Sothan you put another formality in place, that one has to register to voteand then you will definitely get 90%.P: I would like to make a mental exercise to think about what the wordcitizen and politics mean, for me citizens do make politics as even politicians,now everyone will kill me, are citizens. We divide politics fromcitizens because in our culture and history this divide exists, but we should startto think that we all make politics and politicians are also citizens and we shouldtry to forget about this divide and believe that we can all make politics.Mod: Every single person eats so you shouldn’t divide people and eating butthere is a certain division.P: Going further on this idea, in all the discussions here there is this division betweenus and them - but who are them? They are actually a product of ourdecisions and our societies.Mod: The subject is not Citizens and Politicians; it is Citizens and Policies…P: Politics. My question is why regular citizens avoid getting involved in politics?Politicians have such a low percentage of trust from the population. OK, if youdon’t trust politicians, what do you do? Do something. In our societies there is, Idon’t know if it is applicable to entire Central and Eastern Europe countries butit is applicable in Romania, we have the expectations that we can do nothing,we complain and somehow we excuse the politicians for their behavior. If theyare strong and powerful they can afford to do anything. If I get strong and powerful,my behavior will be the same, I will behave as a politician.55

Citizens and PoliticsMod: Are you saying that in your view citizens, individuals, every person in votingage or below do not engage in shaping political decision just because theyfeel they can’t change anything? If you just hate politicians, that’s fine but youcan have an engagement with policy decision on a very local and specificlevelP: To become a politician is the easiest way to influence a political decision,right? Why do people not become politicians?Mod: Do you share this view that the best way to influence politics and policiesis to become a politician?Distinctionbetweenpolicy andpoliticsP: A couple of observations, this discussion needs to distinguish between politicsand policy. I know that in our languages, in Slavic languages there is no distinctionlike in English, while these are two different processes. Today most of thepopulation in these countries still don’t know the distinction - [for them] politics ispolitics done by dirty politicians [on national level], or [something concrete] onthe municipal level e.g. building a bridge. You have a segment of society thatunderstands this distinction but the broader society is yet to come to that level.This immediately opens the issues and distinction of ideology and partisanship;I think that Central and Eastern Europe is still growing in the direction of havingcertain values that are not necessarily linked to a political option. For policiesyou have to make certain choices which might not have anything to do withpolitics regarding the cause, expenses, and choice projections. We have thismyth about influencing policies among NGOs, it is becoming a mantra not onlyhere, but probably even more in Western Balkans and more difficult places towork like Ukraine or Moldova. I think NGOs are facing a block from things thatthey’ve been doing before, meaning development or humanitarian work, andnow they think systematic change would help. This is where they draw their legitimacy.We talked a lot this morning about legitimacy of NGOs and we talkeda lot about the legitimacy, which is drawn from representation. What we didn’tmention is the legitimacy, which may come from expertise and competence.The processes of [producing] policies very often require competence. You talkedabout energy, sources/transport and you engaged in a very tight web ofexperts that has to do with oil, numbers, the direction of state etc, frankly if youwant to be engaged in geostrategic, geopolitical or energy discussions, youwill have to come with a bit of muscle! When we talk about citizens and politicsand using NGOs as vehicles, I would rather be pluralistic and maybe think ofother strategies, not only representation but different strategies of legitimacyfor NGOs.Mod: We should also distinguish between citizens, civil society and NGOs becausethey are different things, in this case it is not a referendum created byone NGO, it is catalyzed by one NGO but it’s an engine for the whole energy.Probably this synergy between an agent for change and a clearly definedproblem plus a popular mood that is shared between members of the communityis one of the recipes for moving and influencing policies. Do you agreewith that statement that NGOs and civil society exaggerate its role in shapingpolicies?P: I am young so I am still representing a very idealistic point that we can influ-56

Citizens and Politicsence policy and politics as well. These three examples of three different activitiesand three different regions have been very nice: the first being a kind ofcelebrity giving a message, then the discussion with journalists and moving onCelebrity to the public and then this about public referenda. There are different ideas,endorsement, they can all work together rather than working against each other, and I totallyjournalism and do not agree with the statement that we shouldn’t do anything. I believe wereferenda they all have a really huge role to play and we should do something, we cannot onlywork in different wait that for the economy to solve the problems. We have to make sure thatways is worth to discuss and push from bottom to the top, there are some legislationand new policies needed. We have example from the UK with the Big Askcampaign, this was really a bottom up initiative through sending postcards - anactivity that really came through. We have the climate bill introduced in the UKand these are activities which come from the bottom up, spontaneously, theyhave rights, they are successful and they have a role.Changingthe rulesdoesn’tmeanactuallydeliveringthe changeMod: I would like very much to put this question in a vote because there wasone view that citizens should not get involved too much into changing the rules,and then the exact opposite., that people should campaign through NGOs orindividually to create initiatives that eventually may lead to major legislativechanges. .. Ok the side of NGOs and citizens and civil society engaging activelyin changing rules and legislationis winning.P: If citizens don’t have the power tochange the rules, who has? It’s a matterof a social contract after all, wehave empowered the government orwhoever is ruling, so we have the rightto have our say. In practice the situationmay be different, but in theorythis is the concept of democracy.P: I think everybody understands thatI just wanted to provoke a discussionhere. Let me post a concrete examplehowever: based on the existingRomanian law in 2006, people with seeing impairment (the blind to put it bluntly)did have access to public information and were entitled to have it deliveredin Brail format. Some NGOs decided, well, it’s not very clear in the law, let’shave a new law that makes it very clear, and they succeeded - the Parliamentpassed that law. Three years later with a new law in place, including big sanctionsfor the institutions that do not provide information in Brail, you still cannotget it in Brail. The point I am trying to make is instead of changing the rules,look around and see who are the people who can take the lead and actuallydeliver change, because that’s more effective, and that’s where citizens maytrust NGOs to change policies even if NGOs and/or citizens may be extremelydisappointed with politics.Mod: You said something about developing political and civil society leaders –that that is one of the major tasks and missions of civil society, is that somethingyou share, we should invest – as citizens, civil society, NGOs – into leadershipdevelopment?57

Citizens and PoliticsReclaimthe powerwe give topoliticiansP: I agree with what you said, it is really important to have better politicians inorder to live in better society, but I think we also shouldn’t forget that we haveto improve citizens, because if we compare by numbers politicians are muchfewer than citizens in a country. If we don’t invest in educating citizens and empowerthem, the few politicians that we have in power will not change. I thinkit is very important to reclaim the power and the authority we give to politiciansto act on our behalf, trough education but also trough making people awarethat they are responsible for their own life and for the problems on their locallevel to be solved. Not to expect the authorities to solve them.The issuehas to beengaging+ timingMod: So you think that one of the key missions of civil society organizations is toeducate and make people aware of their rights?P: Yes, exactly.P: We are talking a lot about empowering people, I think what we are reallydiscussing here can be called the dilemma between representative and directdemocracy. Is it our policy to make it more direct or more representative? InEurope, and not only in Europe but in the world, there is an accent on representativedemocracy. If politicians, and the people who vote for them, are rationalduring the period of voting, but not so rational between elections, probably thisis a problem. This is another question for NGOs, whether we are doing somethingwith the people and for the people - or we are doing something insteadof the people?P: I think the question is not whether we should or shouldn’t try to influence politics,because I don’t think it’s actually our choice. We are doing it constantly,it is inherent in what civil society does, it is in the core of who we are and theexisting situation, we respond to it in different ways, whether we are successfulor not is to a large extent beyond us, really. What we can do is catalyze the discussionabout particular issues, to see whether there is enough response in thesociety. We actually need to, or do already operate in some kind of marketingenvironment. We can be considered as missionaries who want to change theworld but if nobody wants to buy our idea obviously we will fail. On the otherhand, in true marketing they say, there is a laser-like alignment between theone who offers and the one who is receiving - so if we are at the right time andthe right place with the right cause then – bingo! Really influencing policy willhappen, which we heard from the UK, it wasn’t because of the NGOs and thestrategy, it was because the issue was right and engaged people in a fundamentalway. The NGO was just the catalyst.Mod: Can we say that one of the main roles of civil society organizations inrelation with policies and political decisions is the role of catalyst?P: In my opinion, yes, we can help create –through education, awareness andso forth - an environment where we light the match and see whether somethinghappens.P: “Should political parties be NGOs?” We used to think that in our region, inthe post-soviet block, civil society is something that is supposed to oppose thestate. I don’t think you can have a strong civil society without a strong state,58

Citizens and PoliticsNGOs are notnon-politicalorganizationswe should not think about both these spheres as only staying opposite to eachother. I don’t think we should improve the standards of politics by looking forleaders, it sounds to me like surrendering to a pre-democratic way of thinking.The easiest way to think about the standards of politics is always this “let’s findsomeone who is educated enough and has that mathematical solution how tobuild highways in Poland”, it’s a kind of technocratic utopia. Counting on charismais the most traditional pre-democratic way of legitimization according toMax Weber. In Poland we used to think that NGOs are not only non-governmentalorganizations but also non-political organizations, and I don’t think thisis good. It is a reproduction of an apolitical way of thinking, and this apoliticalway of thinking is one of the reasons why the political standards are so bad. Thenegative selection is one of the most crucial mechanisms creating bad, boring,ritual and alienated politics. So I am very much for NGOs being engaged inpolicy, in politics, influencing directly and indirectly. Political parties should becreated as NGOs, not as marketing agencies or apparatus or something else, itshould be a socially well rooted institution, transmitting opinions like a pyramid,from the bottom to the top, in a lively way.P: On direct and representative democracy: each type of democracy has itsown limitations. We have to find a way to conciliate both of them. Not to forget,in some countries in Central and Eastern Europe, democracies are not yet mature.For example if we ask the wrong question in a referendum we might endup with a very weird and not democratic decisionP: The same in England!Majoritydecisionsmay behurtful tominoritiesP: If we ask about “Do we want segregated education for Roma people?” Ibet that the result will be negative in Romania. We might end up with somedecisions made by majorities that will affect deeply minorities. Political partieson the other hand will never raise this issue because there are different types ofmechanisms, peer pressure as we are part of the Union. We shouldn’t considerrepresentative democracy demonized or something out-of-datePolitics are 2 P: Maybe discussions direct versus representative democracy is easier if we thinkthings - setting that politics means two things: taking decisions and setting agendas. Democracyshould be representative when we come to taking decisions and more di-agenda andtaking decisions rect when it comes to setting agendas. The problem of current democracies isthat the agenda doesn’t belong to citizens and politicians don’t take decisions.Solid analysisis neededMod: It was obviously that we have to develop both sides.P: I am a sort of a defender here of silent politicians who are not here.Mod: Good pointP: Not to forget another role, we’ve discussed a lot about NGOs as a catalystfor citizen’s initiatives; we should not forget that civil society could also be anoriginator of “know-how”, of data and of analysis. We live in a society wherethere is very little competition of solid analysis, at universities you see that researchesare still kind of abstract, the government when making decisions arenot well researched etc. Maybe it’s a special niche, but we should not forgetthat NGOs could have this role, it could be producing new knowledge and oth-59

Citizens and Politicser times packaging knowledgeof experts in a language whichwill be accessible to the generalpublic.Mod: Do you think that in ourregion NGOs do this sufficiently?An example: if you go to the EuropeanParliament you will seeit is packed with various NGOs,lobbies and other people whodo exactly that: generate lotsof research and serve membersof Parliament, who don’t haveenough information as theyhave only two or three people helping them so they need this high-quality information.Do Central and Eastern European NGOs provide information on whichbasis politicians can make decisions and move agendas?P: Shortly, the answer is “No”! Not sufficiently. There are NGOs which do this,and they provide excellent examples, but when you look at the volume of analyses,data or knowledge needed out there, you see that it is really a very smallportion.Mod: Do you think that NGOs should put more emphasis on developing aknowledge base and providing of policy-related knowledge?P: In some areas definitely. There is no competition out there, at universities, inThink tanks good public administration and political parties there is nobody to provide expertiseat producing- in a country there are “usual suspects” who have monopoly on a given subject.I work with think tanks - they sometimes are very good in analyzing optionsknowledge, badat translating themand miserable in [translating them into a public action point]. On the sameinto actionfloor we worked together with colleagues working with accountability organizations,which are very well equipped to communicate messages to the publicbut sometimes are caught into a trap where their message is based on values.These are good values, no doubt, but unfortunately politicians are skillful to trapthem often at an early stage of the debate and discount them on the level ofproviding technical expertise. In my donor’s head I would like to see them workingtogether. Organization embodying the two features, they are very rare.Mod: There is an embarrassing gap between the think-tank type of organizationsand advocacy organizations. Then there is the gap to politicians and theParliament, this gap should be bridged in some way. Is there somebody whodoesn’t agree with that?P: I disagree, I subscribe to the lack of expert discussion, or deeper discussion/ informed discussion: sometimes citizens want to be involved in making decisions,but politicians, even if they have good intensions, don’t want to leaveit up to citizens because they think citizens don’t understand enough. I don’tthink that media in the Czech Republic at least, fulfills this role. The discussiontaking place on important issues in the media is more about whom than reallyabout the content, the problem and possible solutions. There is a lack on part60

Citizens and PoliticsNGOs can beinformationproviders butshould connectwith those goodat communicatingthe ideasof media and NGOs should help to make discussions on political issues morecontent oriented.P: I think nobody is fulfilling this role, politicians don’t fulfill it, and the media doesnot unfortunately, at least in Poland to less and less of an extent. Also NGOs justdon’t give sufficient knowledge.Mod: To summarize, we defined that civil society organizations could act effectivelyas catalysts in our environment and achieve something when the situationis right and the popular mood is in place. We also identified the problemof NGOs not producing sufficient information for policy development and decisions,and this gap is not just among NGOs, but across the board; media isbecoming more and more commercial, universities and think-tanks may provideinformation but not in a way that could be communicated well. Then,there is another type of organizations that are very good with communicationand marketing, but they don’t connect with think-tank type of organizations oracademia from which they can take more elaborated ideas. There is a chainthat seems to be broken between clusters of thinking people who developsomething that other people can’t understand and others who promote valueswhich are not linked with sufficient research. Then we have academic organizationsoften working in a very closed way and this produces a picture of anNGO sector which is not working very well togetherP: What do we expect from the NGOs to challenge these perceptions?Mod: Right, yes, we have to ask ourselves weather this is a mission for NGOs orshould we expect someone else to do it?P: Anybody who wants to get involved in a policy making has to come witharguments. Where do you draw the arguments if not from research and fromexpertise?P: It’s not only about identifying the solution correctly, you represent for examplean NGO that is representing people with disabilities, and you have to issuean opinion on this specific field, how do you know what it is the right politicaldecision if you do not do some research? If you go in front of politicians anddecision makers and you do not do your homework properly or know the fieldvery well, you will not have the credibility in front of the person who you wish toconvince.P: For example organization that works with disabled people, they really haveknowledge about their needs, but I think it’s also a matter of connections, morethan one NGO has to provide knowledge and action, those dots mentionedbefore, between think tanks, NGOs, media.Mod; Are you saying that we should invest more effort in organization or networking?P: In communication.P: I am very happy that we are so correct, that civil society should influencepolitics and civil society should deliver knowledge. I agree with that, but the61

Citizens and PoliticsProducingthousandsof papersthat no onereadsCan new toolsbridge thegap betweenpoliticians andcitizens?problem is that we live in a very complex world and we shouldn’t count onexpertise just like that. We shouldn’t count on that if we deliver knowledge topoliticians the decision-making process will conclude at something better. Welive in risk society, in a society in which you have one expertise and then anotherand they stay in discrepancy. This is why politics is so important, becauseit is a fight for hegemony, also between [subjective] expertise, you can alwaysfind experts on the both sides. It is a problem of democratization and the processof delivering and creating expertise. As for the think tanks, there are lots ofinstitutions, classified as NGOs or academic institutions or never mind, they producethousands of papers and no one reads them. Also in this aspect politicsis coming back. For a think tank to really influence politics or policy, you haveto have institution which has an idea - not only how to produce knowledge butalso how to communicate it, how to deliver it in the public sphere and how tocreate advocacy. Why we don’t have proper think tanks is, I believe, becauseit’s very hard to create it’s much harder than we used to think, it is more thangathering a couple scholars, some money and a place: it’s like creating a newculture.Mod: How do we see all these problems and the roles of individual citizens,small communities, are they prepared to act in a decisive way against the bigpower? If we look 15 or 20 years ahead, what do you think are the key problemsand issues in the relationship between citizens and policies / politics?P: I would like to see a lot more informed discussion, that the public is not contentwith some populist claims of politicians because but say we want betterdecisions based on better background. Secondly I want more tools developed,there is a lot of frustration amongst politicians that citizens don’t want to getinvolved, and there is a lot of frustration among citizens that nobody asks themto get involved, so I think that there is a need to develop things in-between likepolls by local government, public discussions, on-line voting, just to bridge thatgap of communication both ways.P: You are right, but we have never had such excellent tools as we do now tocommunicate, debate, vote, choose, and gather knowledge.P: It is not too much, the question is how to gather it,how to select and gather appropriate knowledge,the knowledge is there, but how do we use it in aproper way?P: I think we will use more and more this commonknowledge in the future, resources will be in differentplaces but be connected [to each other] andwill have [specific] people to communicate moreefficiently. Probably the politics in the media will becompletely destroyed and look differently, for suremuch more specialized, small institutions being expertson different issues.P: When I look in my crystal ball, at the relationshipbetween citizens and politics I think in 15-20 yearswe will have reached the bottom of the populist62

Citizens and Politicssentiments, because I expect that citizens will get disillusioned also with populistpolitics, it already shows in on the local elections that people want somethingin return, something tangible, services, products, I think people will get morepragmatic in this sense.Mod: High penetration of communication and knowledge will actually declinethe level of populism?Ownershipof EUopportunitiesP: We live in a time when opinion polls are leading the game, everybody wantsto look at the opinion polls and accommodate the strategy. I am unsure howmuch it penetrates to rural areas, but people who request a bridge will expectthe government to build it, otherwise they will have more powerful tools to replacethe government by peaceful democratic means. This is where I see arole for NGOs, they should continue having conceptual, sometimes esotericdebates, and I see them becoming more and more practical. I wish for Centraland Eastern Europe to have a sense of ownership over the EU, the EuropeanCommission has a lot of powerful instruments and money and countries in thisregion see this as Brussels influences them, rather than “Oh, wait a second, weare also part of this and we should influence them”.Politicalparties willcease to existP: Anthony Giddens has very interesting vision, he says in his latest book Politicsand climate change “Somebody called me and said to me: I am in traffic andI said to him: You’re not in traffic, you are the traffic!”P: Not necessarily in 20 year but I believe in maybe 30 or 40 years, politics as weknow it will die. Political parties will no longer exist and what we now call politicswill be called simply policy making or decision making. You will never seemajorities making decisions but you will see minorities getting together to getthings done, and these minorities may include NGOs or not. The business sectorwill have a higher or more important role than NGOs in decision making and alot more “non-citizens” will be involved in decision makingMod: Who do you call “non-citizen”?P: I did not mean, foreigners but I mean the people that don’t necessarily thinkof the public affairs of their city all the time. People see an issue now, they actupon it, then they are gratified and go about their business.Mod: So citizens who are not politically active, working with single issue - adhoc policy?P: Like instant citizenship, takes five minutes, getting things done maybe overFacebook and then goodbye.Mod: Also if you have any issues that you see will be dominating the publicagenda in 15-20 years please mention them as well.P: My vision of the future is a society made by citizens who take decisions ontheir own, there are no politics and if there are, they act only as a referenceMod: What if they have to take a collective decision, not about whether toget married or not, but whether to start a war or not – that is not exactly an63

Citizens and Politicsindividual thing.P: Everybody should have a say whether to start a war or not start a war, I don’twant someone to take decision on my behalf and to make this possible I thinkthe consciousness of every person should grow.Mod: The Obama of 2029 will ask on Facebook “Shall we attack or not?”P: The role of NGOs and civil society organizations is to help in this process, tomake people more conscious and more aware of how to act and that theiraction is needed. So basically I am in favor of what our colleague said: “politicswill die.”HybriddemocracyP: Representative democracy will not die away. It is as old as the steam engineand the only way to have democracy. However it can be made better throughsomething that could be called ‘hybrid democracy” which is representativedemocracy perfected with tools of direct democracy, the checks and balancesof the government. We, NGOs and civil society, should move in a direction ofdemanding explanations and ask politicians, ruling parties etc to give reasonsfor their decisions. One efficient way to do this would be to introduce obligatoryreferenda for certain amounts of tax-payers’ money, so the investment incertain projects has to be done with the consensus of society. The only way tomake politicians give you reasons is that they want your “Yes” for their project.Mod: It is not by coincidence that during my grandmother’s generation, Bulgariawas called Switzerland of the Balkans, probably what they meant was thisreferendum culture.More andmoreinformedcitizensP: From my perspective we will have more and more informed citizens andvoters in politics and policy making. I have the impression that politicians arenot yet ready to deal with that, the traditional way of doing politics is workingrather with elites or representatives, but these days knowledge is not limited toa bunch of people. Discussions on very technical issues are going on amongregular people.Mod: Politicians are not prepared to work with informed citizens?P: Right. And the political system is not only up to politicians, it’s up to NGOs aswell, whether we will be able to develop this mechanism that is another thing. Ifwe don’t give satisfaction to these voters, we will see a withdrawal from publiclife of the city or the nation or the EU, and we will have election turnouts of 10%P: I will add two points for the future: transparency and more participatory approachto decision making coming from the civil societyMod: Think of one key, leading, central, public, world, global or national issuethat will be the important and on the agenda of civil society, political work,and the public in the next 20 years? One word, or two on issues, not technicalproblems.64

Citizens and PoliticsVoices from the room:• Aging society.• Climate and energy.• Communication.• Climate and energy.• Sustainability• The immunity of Adrian Nastase, the former prime minister.• Development as in modernization• Education• Learning Chinese• Economy and the world cup in football.• Natural resources extinction• The label for year 2028 will be “My way” (Frank Sinatra)• Lack of resources – not only natural but also fresh ideas, new technologiesetc.• Ability of society to address problems of marginalized groups like Roma forexample.• Gap between the globalized citizens and those left behind.• Participation.• DemographyMod: Thank you for the time, the thinking, the effort and I hope that our finalreport will be useful for the near and further development of civil society.65

NGOs and the state- a relationship of clients,partners or opponents?What is the reality of NGO-government partnershipsin the diverse countries of this region, are NGOscontractual implementers or advocating for change?How do we maintain independent voices whiledepending on sustenance funding from governmentsources? Where is the space for supplementing eachother and what is the cross-sector experience ofcoalitions? The purpose of this discussion is to explorehow EU mechanisms impacts NGO-governmentrelations and what the interaction is on the practicallevel in the various CEE countries and to outline the keychallenges and opportunities for effective interactionof NGOs with governments at different levels.

NGOs and the stateBasically civilsociety hasgrown upDusan Ondrusek Moderator (Mod): We know what happened in the last20 years. Now, we want to turn to the next 10 or 20 years, if the prognosis andvision are describing some future possibilities, what does it mean for us to do inthe next 3 or 5 years? The relationship between the state and the CSO is very diverse,in parts of the region, for various issues, it’s complimentary. In some caseswe have the overlap of services; in some we have models of substitution anddelegation of some services to CSOs. In some cases there is no communicationat all. We would like to first hear from you what we need to change in the relationshipbased on your current experience from this region.Participation (P): I would not really generalize; I would start with the CzechRepublic and the situation I see now. First in the Czech Republic the relationshipbetween civil society and the state has gone through 2-3 phases. In firstphase, basically civil society has “grown up;” it took 5-7 years. A lot of thatdevelopment was really about establishing civil society organizations as serviceproviders and in that time the state was not a real partner of civil society organizations.Then slowly, in the second phase, the state started to realize that civilsociety is not the enemy, it is not a bunch of incompetent emotional individualsbut it’s a genuine partner which can do some things more effectively andcheaply. This change in the mindset of the government, was a direct consequenceof EU influence, and the consequence of the failure by the state to doa lot of things. In the meantime, civil society has grown from learning to provideservices, gaining a trust in constituencies, learning how to work with media,and has developed to the level where it shifted towards proposing systematicchange and really started to formulate policies. This development which I believeis relatively positive, has been facilitated and helped through the availabilityof flexible funds and through the influence of the EU accession process.Right now, I think we find ourselves often in a situation when there is more spaceto influence politics than the capacity of NGOs to really advocate well. Thereis lack of capacity of civil society to advocate professionally. In the meantime,the flexible funds have disappeared and now we face serious negative consequencesfor civil society because the only available funds are basically statefunds, which corrupt in many different ways the way civil society behaves, acts,speaks etc. The other option is EU funds which are also devastating in making anegative impact. If you know how to advocate, there is nobody to whom youcan advocate because there are no stable governments. Another importantdevelopment is the parallel development of the service provider branch of civilsociety and the watchdog type branch of civil society. To come back to yourquestion: is civil society organizations partner or watchdog critic of the state?Basically, healthy civil society needs both, although there are a lot of problemsof providing funds for the civil sector in general; it’s much more complicatedand hard when it comes to the watchdog organizations.Mod: You are mentioning the Czech Republic example, are you speakingabout the whole sector or your experience in the development aid area specifically?P: I am speaking about the trend over there in Czech Republic,P: I think [that in] defining the roles and the relationships between the state andthe civil society or NGOs, you should clearly distinguish three levels of the state:[elected] central, [elected] local and public administration, because they67

NGOs and the state3 levelsof state:national, localand publicadministrationhave very difficult, sometimes complex and sometimes complementary relationshipwith civil society. Unless we distinguish these roles, it will be very difficultto discuss without mixing too much. Secondly one of the angles from which wecan see transition is the redefinition of the purpose and sense of shared valuesand shared interests. I think what we see now during the crisis in particular, isthat we have increasing needs to rediscover the common space and the commonshared values, and I think civil society is one of the actors that can providethis. There is strong competition on these three levels of the state on who’s supposedto be defining and defending those common, shared values. Unless wehave the civil society angle and build some kind of partnership, we are goinginto one of two extremes: either just autonomous individuals with difficulty tosurvive or some kind of collectivists’ project, which we have already seen. So, Iwould think that we can discuss what is the optimum balance between thosetwo different levels and the ways that we can reach different roles in definingthose common purposes and common goals.P: It’s symbolic what’s happening between the state and CSOs; if the distanceis too big we have to shout, if the distance is not so big and take all necessarysteps, maybe, we don’t need to shout so much.P: But if become too close, we might have no difference.MutualtrustP: I think that one of the important issues is to see whether the mechanism ofthe interrelationships between the state and the NGO is developed enough,in some countries, it has already developed but it doesn’t work properly. Itmeans, sometimes it stops, continues and then stops again. In other countriesthe mechanism, for NGOs and state authorities to collaborate with each others,in order to achieve the same goal doesn’t exist. In many situations NGOs andthe state have the same goal to achieve something, but the proposal on howto achieve it may be different. So there should be mechanisms for interrelationshipsbetween NGOs and the state plus, there is a need to develop mutual trustbetween them so they can work together better.MakingpolicymakersaccountableP What I have seen among mechanisms is: in order to achieve the goal theNGO propose collaboration to the state. It means, they work together, draftregulation for example, and the most important thing is the involvement of therepresentatives of the NGO in decision making and the legislative reform process.If restriction exists in such instances, then the state will decide somethingon behalf of the society without involving society itself.Mod: So, one concrete mechanism is to create a joint working group of thegovernmental and the NGO experts, in the legislative reform.P: I am coming from a civic group and therefore, my idea is linked to what I’mdoing. For others who for example work in the social or environmental field thismay look different. From my perspective, we have to look at new means ofmaking policymakers accountable. First, there are some mechanisms that helpthem appear efficient, sophisticated and making us believe that they are accountablefor their work, which in fact is not always true. Secondly we shouldalso try to change, at least in Romania from where I come, the general perceptionof NGOs as being biased, representing more a political platforms than theirown views. I find it quite intriguing as the matter of objectivity and non partisan-68

NGOs and the statePaternalism andfeudalismship is the key elements for making ushave a voice with an impact uponpolicy makers.P: I want to add regarding legislationand legal framework, which are actuallythe base for any kind of relationshipbetween the NGOs and thegovernment. An example from theCzech Republic: after the reform ofpublic administration in 2000 thereare much better relationships betweenthe local and regional governmentswith NGOs in the region. Ibelieve they started to think differentlyabout it. On the other hand,on the central level, the preparationof the new Czech civil code anddiscussions about the law on publicbenefit status and public benefit organizations,are quite lively in CzechRepublic, and there is enough spacefor NGOs to be part of it. The problemis that it’s difficult to find somebodyto do it, I get the feeling that there isno union between the NGOs on what they would like to have in this law, andwhen there is no unity of NGOs, it’s very difficult to go into some kind of confrontationwith the government. Another point is that there may be a preparedlaw, but it’s completely out of question to lead it through parliament and - twocompletely different stories.P: I’ll be blunt but I think there are two words that describe the state approachtowards NGOs in our region, and they are paternalism and feudalism. Whilethere are rules and procedures regulating partnership and cooperation betweenthe state and civil society, civil servants mostly implement these regulationsif and as they please. Attitudes like: “All right, I can partner with you, Ican support you if you do it on my terms and my terms only” are common. Theapproach is the most fundamental thing that needs to be changed. And onthe fact that NGOs have different opinions and see things differently in termsof regulation, I think that is natural, and it will be always the case: my usual exampleis that antiabortion groups and feminist groups are both NGOs and theywill never ever agree on an abortion law.Consultative P: An additional issue since we were speaking about participation of NGOs inprocesses rarely making policies and in legislation and in my country very often these relationshipsdon’t work well. NGOs are beginning to take part in different consultativeworkcouncils with different ministries, increasingly what these councils do is: an officialopening ceremony and they never get to real work. Real problems arenot solved in such councils; they don’t work in practice in Bulgaria. The secondissue is because consultation with NGOs is important for the EU, it forces governmentsto do it and there are many cases when we receive a draft regulation ora policy by a ministry and they ask us:” Can you give us a comment on these69

NGOs and the stateThe stateis madeby electedandnominatedpeople50 pages by the end of the day? “This is not consultation, this is what needs tochange. Related to state funding, in Bulgaria, especially now with the structuralfunds, EU funding goes through the state, through ministries which means thatthe ministries choose who should receive the funding or not. This process hasresulted in a lot of NGOs created by political figures or mayors of municipalitiesand they receive the funding. Because this is a lot of funding, the state has thepower to decide which part of the NGO sector would be active and which notP: In relation with the state, in my opinion, we have to change our approachto the state. The state is made by elected and nominated people. They look atus, the civil society, like the father is looking at his child, thinking about the generalgood as well as about their specific interests for a mandate or for a year.Our approach should be to understand their thinking, and we have to preparefirst of all our NGOs’ offer to the government: What do we offer to the governmentthat is added values; that they need for solving public policy issues andfor the general good? If I ask everybody around this table what your offer is, Idon’t know how many of us can say what it is. Looking at NGOs working in mycountry in Romania, they don’t know how to offer their services to the governmentand not all of the NGOs are prepared to discuss with the state. There areNGOs more or less oriented towards giving services to their constituencies, andthere are NGOs with strong voices, related to the government. In the end NGOshave to structure themselves in different sectors or services, find the best leadersand the best voice to discuss with the government. We have to learn how todiscuss with the government, we have to learn their administrative language ifwe want to register some victories. So, we have to do a lot by ourselves in orderto change the perception government has of NGOs, showing the added valuethat we put on the table and why they have to listen to us.What do werepresent?Expertise withoutrepresentationP: I agree, if we really want to change something in our relations to the state,maybe we should start from some reflection on ourselves as an NGO sector.From my point of view, one of the crucial things is the question of legitimizationand what we really represent. If we answer to this question, then we can try tonegotiate our position not only as a service provider but as a real partner. Whatwe are finding now, for example in Poland, is that yes, the state recognizes us,they are giving us more money than they used to a few years ago, but theyare also more and more asking: who are you, who do you really represent andhow can you prove that you represent them? They say: we have the mandateto build a system, we are representing people through elections, but who areyou? I think this is a crucial thing that we have to answer to, and there aresome ways to do it. Especially in the European context, what we can use, inmy opinion, is the principle of subsidiary. This is a value that we should focus onif we want to prove that we want and should be treated as a partner by thegovernment.P: I wish to link to the two previous speakers because I would see those two challengesslightly different. I see a very close link between the “specific offer” issue,the specialization of NGOs, meaning NGOs are becoming experts, more thinktanks than civil society representatives, and the legitimization issue. If you arean expert, then perhaps you are not exactly representing anyone anymore?This is really a major movement right now and a major challenge for us in termsof developments in the NGO sector: what avenues are certain NGOs taking,are they becoming experts? Are they representing anyone? Are there differ-70

NGOs and the stateences in terms of how they should be governed, their legal framework etc?Maybe weshouldn’tlook down onbeekeeperassociationsP: About the nature of civil society and the role of NGOs within that framework,which needs to be explored and understood better. It has been kind of an inductiveexercise [so far]: we go out and do what we do; whatever works - wedo more; what doesn’t work - it takes us a while to recognize. I think, we wouldbenefit by some vigorous examination of what is the proper role of civil societyversus the state. Maybe it’s taking us back to the basics of civic education, butI think this meeting is one of the first times that we’ve really examined this thingas a group. There was a case in the Czech Republic, I think, when the governmentdecided to start funding NGOs. There were lots of complaints in the groupworking on watchdog efforts that a lot of the money was going to beekeepersassociations and alpinists’ clubs etc. These types of organizations don’t do anything,they are just local, and I think we look down on them in some way andmaybe we shouldn’t. Maybe we should try to learn a bit more about what theyare doing and the function that they play.Independentdespitegovernmentalfunding?P: We have to touch on [the issue] to what extent NGOs can be independentif they are dependent on funding from governments? I’m an activist in myheart and participate in organizations but more and more organizations cannotvoice out messages from their constituencies because they depend on thestate [for funding]. I am observing now in Bulgaria and maybe also in Romania,a so called tendency of “capturing the civil society”, which means that many“Gongos” and quasi NGOs are absorbing money from the European funds.The question is how strong are advocacy groups or service providers NGOs tomake this transparent? [How to] send a clear message who they are and todistinguish themselves a little bit from ad hoc NGOs appearing in the last twoyears? This is a very crucial question with regards to legitimacy and how NGOsare gaining public support?Don’t tryto includeeverybodyP: You say that we have a serious problem with the EU funding going to Gongos.Then create a platform of non-Gongo NGOs - don’t try to include everybodythere - and through that platform establish a watchdog system, which willsystematically criticize the misuse of funds! Believe me, in three years time youcan make a change in the society. I really think that the question whether “we”can - not everybody can do everything. The same organization cannot be acritical watchdog and service provider and a constructive advocate vis-a-visthe government. There has to be a division of the labor also within civil societyand among NGOs when you look at its complexity, somebody today describedit as an eco system, then we can really significantly influence policy makingand achieve a bit more, first maybe in countries like the Czech Republic, thenin Romania and Bulgaria. Don’t be pessimistic about our powers.Woulddivision oflabor reallywork?P: I don’t think division of labor would work. As mentioned, if I provide servicesfor people with disabilities, and the legislation in this case is not working, thereis something wrong with it - if its not me doing something about policy making,who else? Whom should I divide my labor with, if I’m the one who works forpeople with disabilities? I don’t think division of labor works and this is one of theproblems we face when we relate to the state.P: My understanding of the division was more about that both roles are needed,but maybe not necessarily done by the same people. Maybe, the organization71

NGOs and the statemay split, sometimes the organization is transformed from service provider towatchdog or opposite. Both roles are necessary and we may be more efficientif we are specialized.Understandwho ourpartner isP: Our task is to learn, even though I may dislike it, to understand who our partneris. Our partner may not be ideal, well-minded civil service, but a more or lesscorrupt political system. Basically we haveto learn from business how they do lobbyingand e.g. use the media to make criticalpoint, use quiet advocacy and use tacticsto achieve something.Mutualtransparencyin CSHuman natureexist alsoamong NGOsNeed of legalexpertiseP: I think we cannot use the example of businessin advocacy. The priority in all relationshipbetween NGOs - no matter if it’s advocacy,service providers, or watchdogs - andthe state is transparency. We need it, [first],from our side, so that we are transparentamong each other (not to hide informationabout calls for proposals, for example). [Secondly],we need to force the state on everylevel to be transparent and to hold it accountable.Transparency is the beginning ofreal partnership. One of the core values of NGOs is that we are open and wantto create a better world. A better world is when everybody participates, andwithout clear information available to everybody we cannot make informeddecisions. The decision may be different for different groups, but still we needto have this common level of public information about each other, this is theway to hold these fake NGOs and fake grassroots organizations accountable.P: This transparency among each other in the NGO sector, I like it, but find itvery idealistic. This is not human nature, we are all human beings, we like advantages;we like to be better and have more than others. I’m sorry, but it’shuman nature and it’s not only like this in the business sector, among NGOs itis exactly the same. I would love it, but it doesn’t work this way in society, becausesociety is constructed of various components that are all human beings.Mod Moving to the second area, some good examples on how to achievesomething are already mentioned, like creating a platform, consultative status,internal educating. What more concrete examples could you bring leading usto real partnership?P: The civil sector needs to develop legal expertise. If you want to influence thestate and parliament, you need to be able and capable to formulate in legalterms. Not every NGO has a lawyer but a bunch of NGOs can find a good lawyerif they work together. Many things are not decided anymore in domesticpolitics, because they are decided on the central European levels, so NGOsneed to develop capacity on how, as a group, they can influence policy inBrussels. None of us can do it individually, but some of us in a group can developmechanisms and basically influence domestic issues through influencingBrussels. Sometimes in Brussels they will listen more to you than your own domesticpolicy makers.72

NGOs and the stateImprovingargumentationConsultinggovernmentstimeconsumingP: This is again a different type of the problem, do we really have connection?Are we really connected with those groups acting on that international level inBrussels? I have a feeling that they very often are doing their business withoutany connection with what is going on in specific countries. You mention thatif we want to influence government we just need legal expertise, I disagree,what we need are arguments. Without arguments we are just simple lobbyists,lobbying for something that is suitable for us but not lobbying for some generaland public purpose.P: One thing that I have noticed: consulting the government requires a lot ofeffort. You need to really devote time and this is something that a lot of NGOsdon’t have, they like to shout something and then they go on to another problem.The other problem is the business attitude of NGOs: very often you don’tget paid when you provide advice on legislation and this means that certainNGOs lose interest in doing it.Sources oflegitimacy:specific expertiseor representingmembersP: Do we have any real examples from countries with official consultation as aworking mechanism, regular, ongoing, sustained?P: I have an example from Lithuania, which doesn’t work in practice. There isa law defining that the state, the authorities, and the government should haveformal consultations with civil society within a month before the law or the decisionbeing adopted. It doesn’t work in reality.P: I am thinking about Estonia, they are quite developed in implementing consultationsand involving citizens in the decision making processes.P: You have to be very clear when you are an actor that wants to consult thegovernment, from where your legitimacy comes. There are basically two sources:one is you, the expertise that you have in place and that’s why they areinterested in consulting you. The second is that you are representative: a membershiporganization or that you have your own branches which you represent,and that’s why you are actually interesting for the government. Those are thetwo sources of legitimacy in Bulgaria, and we have this problem: organizations,which are more or less representative, do not have the expertise in place. Andeven thought they are a [desirable] partner for the government, because thegovernment can legitimize its policies through them, they are not very useful interms of providing specific advice. Organizations that have expertise are notrepresentative, that’s why they are easily dismissed by the government as theyare simply not interested to listen. I am wondering if in some of the more advancedEuropean member states there are examples of combining both: representationand expertise, for the sake of having a stronger voice and beingheard by the government.Mod: Do we have such an example of a country where they have been moreor less successful with having NGOs that are at the same time representativeand can serve as experts in the consultative process toward governments?P: To some extent in Poland, we can say that in the area of legal professions,NGOs have worked as monitors since the 1990s, they have been heard andright now there is ongoing reform of the organization of legal professions. Some73

NGOs and the staterepresentatives of NGOs are part of the process, acting as experts. Whether theoutcomes of these reforms are successful and positive, that’s another issue, butit’s an example. Having said that, I also wanted to tell you something from myexperience of the legislative process: I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’ttoo many examples around our region with really good combination of topexpertise and representation. The problem is that very often, even when thestate does provide consultative mechanisms, it’s difficult to collect the necessaryexpertise, and this is why, I think, the comment on specialization is quiteto the point. Funnily, even in the most organized and funded areas, such asfinance (I used to work for the finance sector, in the regulatory process there),even there you have full consultation and facilities provided for the associationsthat represent different interest groups in the sector. They all sit around the tableand deliberate, and the ministries are happy to hear what they have to say.The only problem is that these guys, again like many NGOs, don’t have timeto elaborate on topics in need of discussion with the government. So, it’s reallyhopeless how those consultations came out.P: It is my feeling that we are talking about NGOs as a consultancy companies.Some other roles should be associated in the discussion, such as watchdogsputting some pressure on the government, etc. I hope the discussion will notsolely be about how we can better become consultants for the government.Mod: My understanding was that [we are talking about NGOs] having consultativestatus in reforms and regulative changes; [of] their representatives beinginvited to panels and expert groups not only with the possibility of commenting,but also sometimes elaborating on the new regulation. In some countries thisis regulated, in some countries it’s not, and there is good and bad practice inthis field.P: I am sure there are a lot of successful examples, I know of one from Hungary,just from this spring when an NGO was actually preparing a resolutionGovernment hasto be interestedfor a so called climate law in their Parliament. In order to have such successfulin what you have achievement a very, very important factor that is not new to any of us althoughto offer we don’t mention it, is that the government and their representatives need tobe interested in what you have to offer. The combination of expertise doesn’tmatter, as long as the government doesn’t want to listen then don’t mind themessage you put in front of them, no matter how clever or intelligent or feasibleeconomically and socially it is, it cannot get through.P: There are mechanisms and techniques for vigorous and efficient public consultation,which have had really good outcomes and changed policies. Maybethe strategy for public consultation has to be organized in different stages, fromImprovethe concept phase until the very end of the regulation process. We have toadvocacylearn good mechanisms for advocacy, working with public consultation, andskillsto know the legislative process in our countries as well as at the European level.We have to use the so-called Economic and Social Council where we as NGOshave chairs, at the national level and at EU level. We have to use tools to interferewith the state or with the government to influence public policy, we cando it. To be good partners and not children in the relationship with the state, wehave to learn a lot about advocacy.P: I just want to add an argument, I think the main and most important thing in74

NGOs and the stateNeed toidentifycommoninterestWhat aboutthe future?Groundedexpectations,not fantasiesthe relationship between an NGO and the state is to know how to approachit. There are many NGOs who are successful today, and they know how toapproach governments If there is a conflict of interest, you can’t implementanything. If there is a common interest, then you can negotiate with the stateauthorities in order to implement a proposal which has the same goals, but howdo you do it is not by looking for problems and saying that the state cannotsolve them, but show how the NGO can help to the authority to solve it. If thereis an additional interest by the NGO, like receiving money or do something else,then nothing can be done. As an NGO member you need to put yourself intothe position of the state authority and see what they can accept, what they likeand don’t like - and the approach should be based on that.Mod Now we want to speak about how you would like to have this relationshipin the future? How will the situation and relationship between the state andthe NGOs look in next 15 to 20 years? We would like to hear realistic, down tothe ground expectations, not fantasies - we know very well what happens duringthe past twenty years, and there might be a difference between what wewere dreaming about 20 years ago and what we achieved. Let’s have realisticexpectations how these relationship might look, and what are the crucial thingsto keep in mind. [Group discussion] I need to interrupt your discussion, sorry, butplease, let’s listen to each subgroup and hear some of the main ideas.European legalframeworks forNGOs?Building trustis a longprocessdependingmainly on usP: We were discussing legal framework and the possibility of preparing somethinglike a European level legal framework for NGOs, some kind of basic principles.Will national governments be pressed, maybe from the top [by the EU], todeal with the situation in their own countries, maybe there are some principlesfrom more developed civil societies in the other EU states that could be used.P: We’ve been talking mainly about building trust and we hope that in oneor two decades the relationship will have more trust, especially from the statetowards civil society. This is a long process and depends mainly on us. Hopefullythe state will understand that there is a space which is filled by civic activitiesand initiatives, they will create conditions so that these initiatives can be bornand flourished, and there will be a friendly environment for this.P: We weremaybe morepessimistic. Itdepends; wecan’t knowwhat the politicsare goingto look like in 10or 20 years. Thehope is that civilsociety [will be]able to reactand [adjust]the way it worksto address thepolitics of themoment. When75

NGOs and the statethe states are authoritarian, it’s the watchdog role that is primary; when theyare generally liberal with the small “l”, and then it’s more capacity building andservice delivery. So, it depends on the direction politics take. One thing, howeverthat we could state as positive and inspirational is a goal to increase theefficiency in the system, e.g. it’s much more efficient to have a consultation ona particular law at the beginning of the process, than when the law is alreadypassed and creates a lot of problems and you have to make a big campaignto overturn it.P: In our group we discussed some pessimistic and some optimistic visions. Theoptimistic includes good communication and consultations between ministries/Advocacy state institutions and NGOs, more synergies between NGOs based on individualgroups having contacts and being able to penetrate different structures. Probably the pessimisticview is that more and more NGOs will become professional NGOs andproblems findingfunding consultancy groups, and there will be less small grassroots NGOs with constituenciesbehind them. Also how advocacy groups will find alternative ways offunding and there is fear of what kind of advocacy groups will emerge in the future,e.g. nationalistic movements, or other extremist kinds of advocacy groups.Youngpeopledoing thingsdifferentlyP: I think there will be another type of self organizing happening quite outsideof this NGO sector. Most of this NGO sector, in my opinion, might go towardsprofessionalization, which completely deletes what it is about. As subcontractorto the government, it [the sector] can do some good work which is OK, but themovement type of NGOs that we believed in some years ago will be a differenttype with young people doing things differently. The question is whether this willbe the good or the bad civil society and what would be the motivation factor:racism or doing something good? European funding will be shrinking and thiswill be a big challenge for good service NGOs because then what, where dothey find the money? Important issue is how to identify alternative funding, andassess what will be the damage when the European funding shrinks.Mod: So, we have some more optimistic and some skeptic or pessimistic scenarios,so what does this mean for us in the near future, over the next 3 to 5years? What do we really need to focus on? What is needed to do in order tohave real partnerships and to avoid these pessimistic scenarios?The moneyquestionP: One of the easiest issues to focus on, although not necessarily to solve, is themoney question. Now NGOs are raising funds locally with mixed success, but it’snot all about government money and it’s not all foundation money anymore.There are some corporate funds, there’s membership dues, there is event fundraisingand I think some attention to these alternative ways of feeding organizationswould be helpful.EU developmentsmatterP; I am not an expert in the region but don’t you think that whatever happensto the EU will have an effect on the role of NGOs? If there is a constitution, willthere be more cohesive policy within the EU? That would certainly affect howNGOs will develop or how they have to develop, and how to interact with thestate. Just an observation: I think that what NGOs have to do is to cooperateand interact more with the government, and the same has to happen from thegovernment side, in order to be more effective in implementing the future EUpolicies within the country.76

NGOs and the stateP: We are an environmental NGO with a public participation program, and wetry to write a common project with a university to teach future officials at local,regional and national level how to discuss with people and how to motivatepeople to participate: methods, tools, when it is possible, when not etc. So, Ihope this can be an idea for you all.Exchange ofstaffP: One alternative mean could be for some NGO representatives to work forthe government for a while, or maybe [have on administrative positions] peoplewho have the experience of working with NGOs. If such a person has agood position in the administration, [s/he] could understand and help to supportNGOs.Transparencyandaccountabilityof NGOsP: Coming back to the issue of building trust I think it’s about proving that anNGO or civil society organization can build their own sustainability, even independentlyfrom government funding, that they can involve constituencies,prove that they work effectively and produce results - that they can communicatetheir impact and mobilize stakeholders around the issue. It’s a long process,but I think it’s important to show results, to communicate them and aim tobuild trust, persuade, convince.P: I would like to see during the next 20 years that developing proper relationsbetween NGOs and the state becomes part of the agenda, of the policy ofthe EU. It is already happening somewhat because of the Lisbon treaty whichincludes a discussion on civil dialogue.P: The EU is an economic union, not a civil society union. It seems thought, thatthere can be some way to introduce issues such as civil society, but it may betoo idealistic. I would say that transparency and accountability of NGOs - thatNGOs really act transparent enough, that they gain trust from their partners andit doesn’t matter if it is government or if it’s business sector - I think this is the onlyway.P: In the next 3 years, I’ll recommend for us to organize ourselves and developour common links, common strategy on how to work with the state, organizinga small “civil society army” in relation to the state because they have to knowwe are here and we have a lot of things to solve together.P: One thing I want to add to the argument of NGO-government relationshippart of EU policy - a first step is to make this issue part of [national] policy. So,whenever there are elections, this will be one of the issues that are promotedand talked about by politicians, not only judicial or economic reform, but alsothe relationship with citizens and with civil society.P: I would like to see in 3-5 years groups of citizens asking some coalition ofNGOs to represent them and to lobby for them and their problems in the governmentstructure.P: Some sort of training program, academic program for NGO leaders, NGOmanagement, some of that has already started but to make it more widespread.P: I would add a training program for public official [on] civil society.77

NGOs and the stateLitigationcase formisuse offundsP: I would like to have one good litigation case of misuse of funds having to givethem back to the state. Maybe, because of some whistle blowing from NGOsfrom the inside that we know they are being misused and we want it back ascitizens.Watchdogwork willremaincrucialLet’s not missthe train for nextprogrammingperiod of the EUP: I think it’s very important to create independent funding for critical but highlyprofessional NGO watchdog work because having the level of sophisticationof corruption that we have on the political scene today, you really need onthe other side some critical watching with high levels of professionalism followingeverything for years. For those types of things you could never have trustfrom the governmental side, so to provide long term sustainability of this typeof critical thinking it has to be created differently than just waiting for the stateto provide the funding. Another thing, today funds are controlled by the state,perhaps it should be the effort by the NGO sector to somehow move this moneyas much as possible to agencies. Out of the hands of the civil servants in ministriesbecause people in ministries change and you are so dependent on them,when you have set up specialized agencies to follow certain issues, you getbigger space for maneuver. For a significant part of civil society it’s extremelyimportant to join forces and tackle corruption and radicalization. These are twoimportant issues of our society, corruption is undermining the basic trust in politicalinstitutions and as a consequence of the economic crisis we are gettingradical forces, being well organized and mobilizing public discontent. Todaythe neo-Nazis are ready to mobilize themselves and dedicate their weekendsto activism; the NGO sector is not ready to dedicate their weekends to try tomobilize counter activism.P: On NGOs and the state working together: first thing is that when I talk aboutinvolving NGO people with the government, it may also be government officialsgoing to NGOs to work together. The second thing is when the governmentdrafts legislation, because everything starts from the legislation, if there isa gap in the law between the government and the NGO versions, they shouldwork together to find [and close] the gap. The third thing could be to ask theministries for some money of the budget, why not?P: Very practically the new programming period of the EU is coming, and ifwe miss the train a lot of the priorities of those that we claim we serve mightbe missed. It’s very important to have this type of action groups in the country,more coordinated who participate in a meaningful way in the consultative processso that the priorities that are needed are there. It’s also really important tohave real monitoring and shadowingto see what was the damage of notusing these all these structural fundsthat were for people in need to the fullextent. We need to do monitoring, weneed to do assessment and in ordernot to be screwed individually, it’s veryimportant to work as a coalition. Thereis a need of citizen feedback to the EUabout this funding, and I do believesome of it can be changed.78Mod: Thanks to all of you for yourideas.

Keeping up with the changing world- how can we guarantee theviability of civil society?What are NGOs – citizen based interest actors orsubsidized project businesses? Who do they serve?How can we keep civic identity and values underthe pressure of a contract-driven culture? Whatabout change, new leaders and joint action beyondprojects? Reaching beyond the discussion of financialsustainability and looking at other issues is crucialto ensuring the long term viability of civil societyorganizations.

Keeping up with the changing worldModerator Pavlina Kalousova (Mod): This session is called “Keeping upwith the changing world” and when I think about how to apply this to the NGOworld it can be quite a crucial issue. Before coming here I was moderating adiscussion between the Czech government and the NPO sector about the newlaw that’s being prepared. 90% of the NGOs are not in support of the law. Iwould say that’s not because they don’t like the idea, but they just refrain fromliking anything that is new and they are afraid what this will bring. It remindedme of the discussion we had about the One Percent Law four years ago, it wasnot passed in the Czech Republic because the NPO sector was afraid. Oneof the arguments for this fear was that if the law were passed the NGOs mightlose state subsidies. What is happening now during the financial crisis is that thestate is reducing the subsidies, and there is no One Percent Law in the CzechRepublic. This kind of lessons we are learning every day, that not liking changemight not be a good argument for us to do nothing. I prepared for you a story,which has four main characters: two little mice, two people, the maze and thecheese. The story is about change and I will tell it to you later. First we will divideinto groups and write down three things that are changing in the world andthree things that are not changing.Group representative (Gr): What changes: legal frameworks, forms of NGOinteraction and means of communication, the way NGOs act, becoming moreprofessional, more like businesses, and the way NGOs deliver their services.Universalinequality ofassets doesnot changeGr: Three things changing: sea levels because of climate change, communicationtechnologies and the balance of global and local, we feel more connectedto the global world and less connected with the local. What does notchange is: death, the level of happiness of people and inequality in terms ofassets.Demographyis changingLeadchange oradaptGr: In our group we think economic systems, communication and civil societyare changing, because people are older and in relation to the economicsystems we are out of money. What is not changing is people’s basic needs,inequality and racism for example.Gr: Points that are changing: climate, economy and technology. What is notchanging: basic personal needs for e.g. food, basic human nature also referringto emotions, everyone can feel happy, sad, be aggressive, and the thirdpoint is that change is constant.Mod: Thank you, and now which are the biggest drivers of change? [Summingup:] People. technology, business… Now how can these changes and thesethings that do not change interfere with your professional and private lives?Gr: After the discussion about what is our role as different NGOs, the summaryis that you can either lead the change like innovators and entrepreneurs, beingupfront and driving change. Some of us work with NGOs who are trying toinfluence what happens. With technology, on the other hand, we were generallysaying that we have to adapt to it, we follow it, we cannot really influenceit but we try to keep up and adapt. With regards to the non-change we saidchange is constant and we just have to accept it and make peace with it.We cannot ignore it but also we cannot do much about it. Our NGO tries totake advantage of the challenges and keep up with modern technologies, us-80

Keeping up with the changing worlding modern communication. We try to be more efficient and actively transferthe economic system as well as stabilize the bridge loans to other NGOs. Withregards to climate change we try to inform and change our behavior like forexample with the heating system. Our NGOs are not taking as many risks as wedid before. 1Civil societyhas a role inmonitoring useand abuse oftechnologyGr: Regarding sea levels which are changing we think that civil society does alot of advocacy, conservation, preservation and recycling programs, alternativeenergy plus helping communities live with higher sea levels. With regardsto communication technology civil society looks at how to make use of it andsome civil society organizations provide technical support. We also thought civilsociety has a role in monitoring its use and abuse perhaps. The level of happiness- we struggled over; since it’s not changing we thought we could try toconvince people that they should moderate their materialism and consumerismbecause it’s not going to make them any happier to try to raise the levelafter a certain point. We had some really good ideas about changing death aswe talked about NGOs role in improving the quality of life before death, makingdeath easier and dignified, addressing people’s fear of death and preparingfor the afterlife.Organizationsare not resistantto change theyare producing itGr: We were discussing values, needs, forms of delivery and communicationand what organizations are doing in these fields. We are protecting and promotingvalues, we are helping respond to the needs of people and, talkingabout communication, we work a lot in the area of awareness raising and educatingpeople. We are also responding by creating new forms of organizations,new structures that should address new problems and issues.Mod: If you see businesses and their strategies, they are all talkingabout change as a good thing. Most of the marketing of businessesand global corporations is based on change and what it brings to ourlife – and it’s positive. When you read programs of the political parties,how they will change our lives – it’s positive. When you listen to the newmusic it’s about change and it’s trying to make us happy. However, ifyou listen to NGOs and civil society, sometimes we talk only about thedark side of our lives, we use complicated heavy wording, which is insome kind of opposition with the rest of the communication people arehearing. May be we could also think about positive things, and how wecan talk to people in a language that they can understand.Participant (P): I would disagree that there is such a negative andpessimistic attitude and resistance to change among organizations, I wouldrather say that the organizations are producing the change; they are stimulatingothers and showing other people that change is something good. We workwith our beneficiaries and society that might be resistant, because introducingsomething new is always difficult. But I feel that saying that business believeschange is positive and civil society says that change is negative, I wouldn’t putit as black and white.Mod: It was my role to make it black and white, I was not saying that’s whatthey do; I was talking about how they communicate. Now to the story aboutthe mice and the cheese. So if you don’t know the story I will just make it very181

Keeping up with the changing worldA story aboutcheese, miceand peopleNew partners,establisha socialenterprise,change profileor focusbrief. These are the four main characters of the story, 2 humans and 2 mice.Once upon a time there were these four characters that wanted to be happy,and they knew that they were only going to be happy if they find the cheesein the maze, so they were running in the maze looking for cheese day afterday but they couldn’t find it. One day they ran into something called stationC, where they found a wonderful storage of cheese, it was delicious and theyloved it. They were going there every day because they knew there was enoughcheese to satisfy their needs, and they thought they are happy because theydidn’t have to run through the maze all day looking for cheese. They just knewwhere it was, so they didn’t put a lot of effort into it, they didn’t dress or put theirsneakers on, they just went in their slippers because they knew that the cheeseis there. The storage of the cheese was diminishing and one day they realizedthat all the cheese was gone, there was no cheese anymore. They didn’t knowwhat to do. Anyway, the mice behaved naturally and said ok, the old cheeseis not here, so let’s find new cheese. And so they started running in the mazeand they found new cheese in station G, which was a much bigger storagethan station C. They found camembert, mozzarella, cheddar and all kinds ofwonderful cheese and it made them even happier. The people instead of goingafter the mice, started to analyze. They were questioning who did this to us,how did we deserve that someone took the cheese from us and they becamevery hungry. They were very upset because somebody took away their happiness,and instead of going to find new cheese they got stuck in the old station,wondering who took the cheese. Let’s talk about how the NGO sector maylook like in 10 years if the old cheese is gone and there is no other cheese. Whatdoes the new cheese look like and how can we find it?Gr: We came up with four suggestions: number one is to find the cow to makeour own cheese - via income from a social enterprise, playing in the market etc.Number two is to become friendlier to the mice, who obviously have a superiorintelligence since they’ve got new cheese - that would mean finding morepartners who have resources, which we don’t have, improving communications,our good name and legitimacy. The third is to change ourselves into miceand enjoy the cheese together,that would mean becoming abusiness or a government contractor.The fourth is to switch ourneed from cheese to chocolateand look for completely differentresources; maybe some wedon’t even know exist. Chocolateis more attractive to some ofus, particularly since I am allergicto cheese, really.Gr: What will happen to peopleif they don’t adapt and go lookingfor cheese, our conclusion isthat death will come for this particularNGO and this is the mainoutcome. One donor disappearsand then this might go further toaffect other donors, and the rep-82

Keeping up with the changing worldIt is a marketof NGOs,some willsurviveIncreasinglocal fundingutation of this particular NGO and other NGOs as a sector in general - so this isa danger for the whole sector. We have to be flexible to respond to changesand isolation is one more consequence, which might come up. I believe thatorganizations should be competitive, and the better organizations should stayin the market and organizations that don’t operate well and don’t fulfill theirclients’ needs or respond to change appropriately should go. We should alsotry to educate donors, so if donors or funders or institutions that invest chooseareas that are no longer important or valid, we also should try to tell them thatthis or that is not a problem in our community, it is not really a problem for thisgroup of people.Gr: We basically came up with three things: to learn how to make your owncheese, or convince people to bring cheese to you by organizing them, or,finally, to convince factories that make cheese to provide you with a portion oftheir cheese - so corporate social responsibility.Gr: For us the new cheese would be people acting at the local level - fundingbecoming more local and being dependent on private individuals or civil societyinitiatives being more self sufficient maybe in the shape of making a socialbusiness. The new cheese is more social engagement from individuals also inthe shape of corporate volunteering or volunteering during your retirement.Cheese that grows locally and is not imported, never runs out.Mod: Is this in line with the changes that are happening outside? What areyou describing – the new cheese or the end of the old cheese? Does it connectwith your discussion of the economic systems, sea levels, global-local, aging,means of communications, environment, professional NGOs? What kind oftools do we offer to the others to participate?P: One of our points was to improve communications, outreach, sense of socialroots and legitimacy - all those things you need if you want more people toparticipate in your activities. Financially, I am not sure but we’ve tried for many,many years and it hasn’t worked, it’s difficultMod: What kind of recommendations would you give to people or NGOs toget from here to there?ConstantmonitoringP: NGOs should constantly monitor their work and make sure the solutions theypropose are not harmful in the long term. Constantly monitor their objectivesand their mission, the methodology and the solutions and connect their capacityto change according to the analysis. Don’t analyze just for the sake ofanalyzing, use local resources, be creative with the resources and make surethat you become sustainable.P: We thought of three strategies how to deal with cheese becoming less available.One way is to diversify resources, including social enterprise like “eat notonly cheese but other things also”. Reach out to large number of people andcome back to your roots if you started as a grassroots NGO. This way you areless dependent on large grants from foundations, government subsidies or corporatefinancing if you receive support from private citizens. Finally, increasethe capacity within the NGO, keep the human capital - if you have peopletrained how to find cheese and they leave this is not good, try to keep people83

Keeping up with the changing worldMore visibilityin societyMove with thecheese andenjoy itand upgrade them.Mod: Other ideas: stay curious, be persistent, stay focused, take advantage ofchanges and technology, keep learning, take risks and look out for local possibilities.P: NGOs should try to be more visible in society, speak more about themselves:what they do, how they do it and why they do it. Be more proactive and innovative.Learn a lot from business models, Engage more individual donorsinstead of relying on grants or institutional donations, and cooperate amongeach other so that you can build a sector that has a political voice and caninfluence legislation.Mod: To finish the story, these are some of the important moments that happenedto the people because the mice went out and found the cheese. Somerecommendations from the people: the more important your cheese is to youthe more you want to hold on to it. You have to smell the cheese often soyou know when it’s getting old because keeping old beliefs like the cheese instorage C, does not lead you to new cheese. At the end when people realizedthat either they are going to die or they have to move on to find the newcheese, they realized that the best thing you can do is to move with the cheeseand enjoy it. This story is called “Who took my cheese?” and is used a lot by corporationsto teach people to deal with change. It was given to me by a CEOof a company that had to restructure the whole company and was saying thatpeople are going in the hallways complaining how it was wonderful before thechanges, and he realized that he had to teach people that change is not bad,it is normal and natural.84

Civil society, old media, andcyberspace - too much talk,but no communication?Is it easier to have a mission than to have a message?Why it is so hard for NGOs to formulate effective messagesand speak the same language as their audience? Isvirtual communication killing messages and blurringresponsibility - and in the end with so many diverseplatforms, why are our messages getting lost? A crucialpoint for the survival of civil society is to turn “NGO speak”into effective communication!

Civil society, old media, and cyberspace - too much talk, but no communication?A lot oftalking - littlecommunicationModerator Petko Georgiev: I want to start with just a few basic issues that Isee as key in terms of the relationships between the NGOs and the media. Thetitle of this discussion is created after a song of the Bingo Boys, that you mightremember – it was a hit a couple of years ago – Too much talk and no communication.Well I think this is the situation that many of the NGOs are.If you look at what they do, they are talking a lot – they have websites, theypublish reports, they meet at conferences, they have their internet placeswhere they communicate with each other. So there is a lot of talk going on. Butmy impression - and I think that many of you might share this - it is that there is reallyvery little communication. There is very little that reaches a wider audienceoutside those closed circles, those shared micro spaces where NGO peoplecommunicate. So I would think this is one of the major problems or issues thatneed to be addressed.ExpandingplatformsAnother observation as a starting point for this discussion, we have seen in thelast ten years a real revolution in the area of communication, mobile phones,the internet. They have changed the world beyond any kind of imagination.I guess most of us cannot imagine working and living without an email andwithout the cell phone. So the platforms for communication have expandedand they are no longer limited to specific people but accessible for anybody.We don’t have the excuse of the limited space we had ten years ago, wheneverybody could say, well we got all these great ideas and the national mediais so controlled and commercialized and so on, they don’t want to listen to us.No! No more excuses. The space for communication is more open than everand it’s becoming even more open. So if we are looking for reason why arecommunications going nowhere we should start looking into our own way ofcommunicating first?An ocean ofinformationthat lacksobjectivityTechnology has, as always, gone before imagination of people how to bestuse it. We’ve been hoping very much that the internet and the communicationrevolution gadgets that we have today will expand outreach and contributeto more and freer access to information. Instead of that, we have received anocean of information that lacks objectivity. We have sacrificed our own privatespace and privacy because of those communication means and at the sametime we are limited and don’t participate in that wide share of informationspace. My opinion is that societies are getting more and more fragmented andpeople prefer to communicate only with those who are like them. So more orless whoever you put as a friend on Myspace are the people you want to talkto. The rest we don’t care about, and they don’t care about you. I think that’sa problem. Social networks eventually expanded our way to reach people thatwe consider part of our own circle but have grossly limited our ability and ourtime and motivation to reach out to other people.Another question is about the content of internet communication. Is it a blessingas most of us thought it might be, the freedom we have to express ourselvesand reach unlimited amounts of people? Or is it a curse because anybodycan publish anything? And you have no way of knowing if it’s true or not, youhave no way of knowing whether it’s verified. Once you read something on theinternet you have to do your own research to find out if the text has anythingto do with the reality. So this is a new dilemma of irresponsibility versus freedomin communication. Just a few years ago we were dealing with censorship and86

Civil society, old media, and cyberspace - too much talk, but no communication?limited access to the media and now we have another issue – unlimited accessto communication and the responsibility issue of what is published the contentof forums chat rooms and so on. Anybody is free to publish whatever they likeand of course they are not aware that big brother is actually watching themand people have ways of finding out who has written what.Finally I would like to say that effective communication - and I am talking nowfrom the perspective of NGOs - effective communication has nothing to doYou don’twith how much an NGO is representative. To be effective in communicationhave to beyou don’t have to be representative for anybody, Coca Cola Light does notrepresentativeyou have torepresent anybody but yet they found an excellent way to communicate theirhave a message message and become popular. You have to have a message and you haveto know how to communicate that message, these are the basic issues, it’s notabout being representative. This is a problem as well, because people who areonly representing themselves are generally more effective in communicationthan very well organized groups of people. Now time for your commentsAggressiveattitudeonlineParticipant (P): It’s striking for me how much energy communication requiresand I am asking myself how much energy am I ready to put into communicating.P: I think that even if we are lost in this ocean of information we still cannotignore things like Facebook, Twitter etc. and try to use it for the best means orpurposes.P: I am amazed with the tech revolution we are living in and the world that’schanging every day. I am interested in manipulation. I try to ignore Twitter andFacebook, but it’s like a few years ago we tried to ignore cell phones, but I thinkI will have to try to use it.P: Another problem is the interest of the audience, probably because there’snot enough time to invest, the [NGO] shows are boring and nobody watchesthem.P: That it’s about inability it’s not about time.P: I am kind of afraid of the aggressive attitude [of anonymous comments online],so I don’t read comments to my articles. I was told that I have to replybecause if I don’t get the feedback, I will not know what I would like to talkabout here. [I feel that media] accept me more as an individual, as an expertthan as someone who’s representing the movement. And even though I usedthe background knowledge of the movement the environmental NGOs andinternational networks, they [the media] don’t want me to represent anybody.Mod: The internet can help with providing a tool for transparency for NGOs,but you have to learn the rules, because there are different rules for the onlineworld. First of all you cannot choose your audience – you never know whoreads your stories. This is why you have to adapt.P: We are struggling with the [problem] how to present very complicated legalissues in a relatively simple manner. Like freedom of expression versus the dignityof individuals or crime prevention versus defendant’s rights - these are very dif-87

Civil society, old media, and cyberspace - too much talk, but no communication?How to presentcomplicatedlegal issues in asimple manner?NGOs as anews sourceDon’t needto reinventthe wheelficult delicate issues this is problem A. Problem B is that our main target groupsare not too sexy from the point of view of the public, how can we convince themajority society that marginalized groups’ problems are real problems whichconcern them without being populist?Mod: I think it is important to see how journalists consider NGOs as news source.If the content provided by an NGO is not newsworthy, then it has difficulty toreach mainstream media and be in the news. Probably we have to differentiatebetween the general presence of an NGO on the internet and content /campaigns. Also we need to understand how media works, probably that’show NGOs can improve their presence and acceptance in the media.P: [Communication] is a gateway to philanthropy, participation, volunteerism,everything that makes the people understand why NGOs are there and whatare they doing. We face really heavy obstacles on how to present the idea ofcivil society organizations, how to work with journalists to transmit these kind ofideas - how not only to have a message but get the message heard by thepublic. How to choose the channels and how to use them in a proper way.P: If you look at the top Twitter profiles in the country or worldwide it’s not peoplewith causes that are the most effective communicators, it’s often peoplewho are advertising themselves. This is a big challenge.P: We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. There is so much already out there thatcan be used – we don’t need to reinvent a new Facebook or Twitter, but makeapplications and RSS feeds and work on [what is already there].P: If you bring a message you also have to bring ideology and that’s what allthe NGOs are discussing about. E.g. it is really hard for the media to get the rightnumbers on human trafficking in let’s say Eastern Europe, getting [NGOs workingon these issues] together and providing the media with real actual numberswould be the right way to combine NGOs and NPOs with the media.Media iscaptured bybusinessesCommunicationhelps createlackingconstituenciesIf you are not onthe internet youdont existP: I would like to share the difficulties that we face in our work with the media,which is many times captured, not anymore by politics, but by businesses whoare controlled and well linked with politicians. This is many times shutting thevoices of civil society on very important issues.P: Communication helps civil society to create constituencies and this is somethingthat is lacking both vertically among NGOs and between civil society andthe people.P: Evil forces can use the same tools for exactly the opposite purposes.P: If you are not on the internet you do not exist, if you ignore the internet someonewill fill it with content anyway and you will be absent. You have to do it –there is no choice.Mod: I’ll give you an example. If I am doing a story on human trafficking whichwe do from time to time in the program that I produce I would turn to a coupleof very professional NGOs in that sphere in Bulgaria to give me the data, togive me opinion. They are newsworthy for me, because I know they have the88

Civil society, old media, and cyberspace - too much talk, but no communication?Journalistsneed expertsin theiraddress bookexpertise. And I don’t see any problem in that, journalists operate in a verysimple manner. We have an address book and e.g. with regards to crime eachof us has four or five names tops. When there is a story concerning crime wecall those people, we don’t start searching for new sources but usually call thesources that we already have. Only if those sources are not sufficient for ourwork we would start to search for new names. So if I am an NGO - I try to putmy name on the address book of those journalists that are writing about myproblems. Once I am in their phone book I am represented in the media. It’sreally very simple. Media will call me once and if they find me interesting they’llkeep calling me, if they don’t find me interesting they will never call me again.P: I have the feeling it’s not the media’s first interest to raise awareness but tohave a certain action and a certain point. In this very fast living world we justhave time to care about one thing.P: I think it’s important to be present on the web because when journalists needa cover story they search the web first. I have an example of a Hungarian whoused to write a blog in English explaining politics in Hungary. He would publishit once a week, he wouldn’t have very high amount of readers but every nowand then he had foreign journalists talking to him because he was the easiestone to find online. He was the first person they would talk to and he would tellthem where to look for more information and whom to ask further. So in a wayhe was on a shared telephone / email list of all journalists in the world by beingpresent on the web.PositioningMod: It is about positioning yourself. I know it’s a marketing thing but it has tobe applied. This guy has positioned himself perfectly to be the contact point ofpeople outside Hungary who are interested in current developments.P: I think there is a change in the conception of what journalism is and what’snews production. You may produce professional production however mostwebsites nowadays have a place where you can watch videos - everything ispublished on the internet and internet users can choose what they like to see,compared to what is shown on TV.Generation gapP: I think that there is a very clear generation gap; I don’t think many peopleunder 20 watch TV these days. And I don’t think many people over 40 read theinternet daily. So we have two parallelworlds: in the kitchen and in the diningroom you have two people livingin the world of TV and the next roomtheir kids are living in a different environment– the internet. And they don’treally overlap that much.Mod: NGO representation on the internet.As a journalist I have a huge problemwith this. Open any NGO site, it hassome information about the organizationand it’s full of success stories. Successstories and contact information.Neither of this works for a journalist. As89

Civil society, old media, and cyberspace - too much talk, but no communication?Success stories and a reader but also as a journalist I have learned not to believe everything that iscontact information, written on an institutional or NGO website. This is a problem for NGOs. Have younone of this works ever heard of a project that has failed? We started this project but we messed itfor a journalist up, it didn’t turn out well. No, every project is a bigger or a smaller success story.If you read the internet it is full of success stories of projects that are dead andforgotten a long time ago - what do you do with that?An interactiveblog can createinterestingcommunicationNo technicallanguage, ratherimages photosand engagingmessagesP: A potential solution for this can be a blog where we accept all comments.On our organizational blog we have very interesting communication betweenpotential beneficiaries and the foundation, as well as new ideas for our project.Mod: NGOs that open their projects to free and open public evaluation that’sinnovation.P: There are some rules here too however, e.g. do not blog texts with technicalNGO language on your website! Just use short paragraphs, images, photos ofyour project and send engaging messages: how can you as my viewer helpme as an NGO or how can you get involved in our actions: as a volunteer, asa donor, anything. It has to be engaging. [Instead of] only providing successstories you could also tag and have hyperlinks that connect you to other sites.This can bring not only the success stories but also the sad stories and the reasonswhy you work for this – this can be done by good tagging. Google’s doingit and it’ a way of future public pressure, a new skill: search engine optimizationand tagging.P: It’s free, anybody can tag themselves into Wikipedia.P: It’s a whole science; there are companies that make living out of it. It is muchmore complicated.Opening a shopon a side streetP: Putting everything in your NGO language as someone said on your websiteit’s like opening a shop on a side street in a suburb, while actually you want tobe center square of the city. Go where the main action is on the internet, makesure you have articles on the issue you work about on Wikipedia, that it’s upto-dateand has all available information there, maybe linked to your reports.Think of a way you can use YouTube. The second most popular search engineon the web after Google is YouTube. People like to watch things. Forget yourwebsite. It should be there but it’s not that important, what’s important is thatthe message is available where people go.Mod: Most of civil society by default wants to influence public opinion andthrough that have an impact on public policy as well. Public opinion is still, andwill be in the few years to come, formed through the mainstream media. Howcan civil society and NGOs work better with mainstream media? Why is it sodifficult for NGOs to produce news stories and understand how to put their contentwhere it really matters? Ok, Google has a worldwide audience of billionsbut if you want to influence a specific public policy decision in your country,what you really need is the headline news of your national TV. Google may helpbut it won’t do the trick.P: I think that it’s not a matter of not knowing how the media works, because Ithink that it’s fairly easy to understand, NGOs are now more and more employ-90

Civil society, old media, and cyberspace - too much talk, but no communication?Good newsdoesn’t counting people that have a media background to work as press officers or mediaexperts or even media consultants.P: The NGOs that are able to attract media attention are the ones that fight humanrights, freedom of expression or they do very provocative actions - for exampleGreenpeace, Amnesty international, Human Rights Watch. Good newsfrom NGOs doesn’t count.There isnews andno newsBad newsare catchyit looksdramaticSkip NGOvocabularyreal peopleand storiesare betterMod: I personally think that the media does not operate in the categories ofgood and bad news - there is news and no news. I will give you an example. Ifthe government increases the pension by 10% I think every national newspaperand TV will start with that story if there hasn’t been a major earthquake thatsame day or something like that. It’s a positive thing to have pensions goingup by 10% and the media will not discriminate against that news because it’spositive. It’s not about good or bad, it’s about promoting stories that concernpeople. They will start with the pension story because it concerns a vast majorityof the population. Even if the media doesn’t formulate it that way, they prioritizetheir stories according to what part of the audience the particular story concerns,and whether it a forms of novelty or threat to that part of the audience.It is much more difficult but there is a technique of promoting positive stories.P: Can I disagree with you? Another example however, from Budapest, Hungary:about 200 people set the TV building on fire - it was on the news for weeks.When 50 people blocked a bridge it was again in news for weeks. But when 600people on bicycles demonstrate peacefully twice a year, there is just a smallmentioning on the 10th page [of a newspaper]. Bad news is catchy, a buildingon fire – it looks dramatic. A bunch of people demonstrating peacefully it’s notcatchy.P: Just an idea how to sell your NGO story to the media: sadly journalists oftenwork on the minimum effort into a story, basically if they are going to a pressconference they publish the written material they were given. You should beprepared for this – and not with the NGO vocabulary - pick up a person, becausean NGO benefits from working with real people e.g. with unprivilegedkids. For a journalist it’s not that easy to come into contact with this kind of personand if you work with them and say you have contact (of course if they arewilling to cooperate) this can be something that links you to the media. Makinga personal story is always easier to show than just numbers and stuff.Mod: I think it’s very logical for NGOs to distribute their messages through individualhuman stories. NGOs are supposed to be working with real people sowhy do they need to talk the language of statistics? Media is more and morelooking into individual stories when they want to present a certain piece ofnews, and a good news story will always start with the particular person’s storyand then go on to the facts. So if an NGO helps a reporter to find out the personalstory that will help him or her do better TV or newspaper stories – this willhelp the NGO get their message through. Work more with personal individualstories!P: Another thing that could help NGOs to get their message to the wide public isto use their business partner. It doesn’t matter if it for a specific project or a generalpartner – but someone who knows you. Business people are usually more91

Civil society, old media, and cyberspace - too much talk, but no communication?Use marketingskills of thecorporate sectorskilled to communicatewith mediaand promotetheir products -so these peoplecould really helpus to get the messagethroughand by using theircontacts mainly(it’s all about usingcontacts andphonebooks).P: It may begood for NGOsto adopt some ofthose marketingskills from the corporatesector. For example the cigarette producers - you see what kind of stuffthey are able to promote, it’s bad for your health, it’s killing your kids, its full ofpoison… And still they are very good at promoting it. We NGOs are supposedto be promoting things that are of value to citizens, so if we were able to usethe same skills, even if we don’t have the same budgets, we can use the sameskills, there is no reason why that shouldn’t work.Mod: Will there be journalists in 20 years? Is there a need for journalists?Decline oftraditionalmediaP: I think there will be space for journalists in 20 years, but it will look very different.The decline of traditional media is a fairly hot story of the past few years.One of the things we [were thinking] initially is that with the internet there [willbe]no need for media outlets because anyone can publish anything. Howevernow we start to realize that that’s exactly the point. If anyone can publish anythingthere is actually still a strong need for somebody to build up credibility,someone who you can trust. Someone needs to look at every day and curatethe news for you, so, at least in my mind, there is no question that there will bejournalists in the future. What kinds of news outlets they will be working for is awhole other issue. Someone spoke about YouTube; the strength of the mediaon the internet today is that they can merge various things , written content sideby side with video content, even with chat functions, etc. and this is the type ofstuff that you cannot do with the traditional media.Mod: So there will be a need for journalists in a different technological environmentbut in the same functional role.P: Ultimately I would say yes. As a journalist you have to deal with the variousformats, probably you have to have one person as TV crew, radio crew etc, butsomeone needs to follow and make sense of the news.How can webuild publicpressure?P: How can be we build public pressure in 20 years? This is interesting becauseits the overlapping part between media and NPOs – publics pressure.92

Civil society, old media, and cyberspace - too much talk, but no communication?How are NGOsand civil societyparticipating in thecreation of qualitycontent which isworth watching?Responsiblecontrol ofinformation isrelativeTV will die,news willbe boughtP: I don’t think the professional field [of journalism] will die, even if citizen journalismcontent can be of good quality, in most cases it’s not. And it’s very personal,it’s not always in the public interest.Mod: If you want to look forward it’s always interesting to look a little bit backwards.Remember what the situation was just 15 years ago: one public statechannel TV, just a few newspapers in this part of the world, all of them controlledby the state. Also in Western Europe the situation was similar: public TV, maybewith two channels, public radio maybe with two or three channels. Those whoremember those times, we hoped that once that monopoly’s broken and wehave more private and commercial channels, all of a sudden there will be amuch bigger choice or variety of programs that you can watch . It will be amuch better and freer media environment. Now I find myself surfing the channels,I have 65 of them at home, with digital platforms you probably have hundredsof them, I surf through the channels and very rarely I can find somethingworth watching. Technology may provide you with millions of channels andterabits of content on the internet, but it will not necessarily provide you withsomething interesting to watch, something worthy of listening to or reading. Solet me phrase another question: how are NGOs and civil society participatingin the creation of quality content which is worth watching?P: About journalists as curators, this is a very difficult question and one of thegreat things that internet communication has done has been to reduce thepower of the information gate keepers. This is crucial at the moment. Thenthere’s the question of responsibility for the content. Two examples: a travelguide book from the last century - a very responsible travel guide talking aboutEgypt and the Egyptians, and it said Egyptians do not wash; they have a lowsense of morality, etc. etc. This was content, which had been through all thecommittees and approved to be published. Another example is the scientificconsensus in the 1970s that animals are unable to feel emotions. This conclusionwas managed by peer reviews and as no scientific information suggested thecontrary, it was allowed to be published in scientific literature. This was [backthen] supposedly responsible control of information – but in fact it was totallywrong. I think that the strength of internet is about choice, and not having oneoutlet curating the news. There is value in the vastness of information.P: About the future, I think TV will die and I think that news will be paid for. In aworld with so much information, you will have to pay for it in order to get therelevant one. I am pretty sure about this.P: I think we are not first people debating the future of the media. When radiowas invented people were afraid that human kind will forget about readingbooks. When TV was invented they though this is the end of radio. I don’t thinkTV will ever die because the average person does not have the time and theresources or the motivation to search for news and to search for content. Therewill always be some technical tools call it a TV station, a program director ora multimedia portal which will be digesting content for you. People are busy,they have full lives and they are getting busier and busier and have less and lesstime. If you are a doctor or some other professional you need to hear what’sgoing on around you, but you don’t have the time to search on the internetall day. You still need someone to digest and to give you the essential part ofwhat’s going on. And who is that guy - is it a blogger who is responsible only93

Civil society, old media, and cyberspace - too much talk, but no communication?for his own values and ethics, or is it a news organization, maybe different fromtoday’s news organizations, but who anyways follows some kind of professionalcode of conduct and knows when something can be promoted as verifiednews, who can differentiate between news and opinion and feel obliged togive a balanced view of the different opinions. If this dies I think society will losesomething very important because we’ll go back to the time of party newspapers.News won’t matter because you will always find something to supportyour thesis. If you don’t find something to support your thesis, you always havea shoe to take off and throw at somebody.Mod: What should civil society and NGOs do in practice in the next years toimprove, I think we have a consensus that they need to do something.Form isgatheringimportanceP: I think one of the things that is happening to media presentation is that theform becomes more and more important. Everything needs to look pretty andit needs to be short because people don’t take time. This leaves much morefor reporters to do, much more time is needed to deal with the backgroundinformation, take out just the short important parts, be representative of bothsides and not biased and so on. If there is a specific topic that an NGO covers,they could really help out - because it’s their field they know the stuff and canprobably do some of the work.Educating themedia is animpossibletaskP: Can NGOs change the media? The problem is, even if the message is theright one, the presentation in the media is not always correct. E.g.a journalist may ask: why are there so many NGOs, doesn’t thisweaken them and prove them useless? If this is the first question,our task is to teach journalists. Probably with a university course.There is major lack of understanding about NGOs and civil society.Mod: I understand but I don’t agree. Civil society and NGOs areeven less popular than governments and if NGOs don’t trust themedia please believe me the media don’t trust NGOs - and withgood reason. I don’t think NGOs should at all try to put educatingthe media on the agenda. It’s an impossible task - the media are what theyare. We must learn to use them and work with them as they are, this is a majorprinciple of PR. If you haven’t been heard, it’s your problem that you haven’tbeen heard, it’s never the problem of the recipient. You have to be able tochoose the right wording, the right time, the right environment, the right media,the right carrier of your message in order to be heard. You can’t change themedia. Efforts like this have been done. So many NGOs, so many donors havefunded their own media outlets or taken a media outlet and funded it for yearsand years placing their messages without any complaints because they arepaying the bill and everything they want gets published. The result is less thanzero. Such publications lack credibility with the public, it’s not the solution tore-educate the media, ”let’s teach them about NGOs, let’s teach them aboutcivil society”. No. They are what they are.P: We as civil society organizations are in disadvantaged position becausemany before us and many around us have destroyed the image of NGOs. Weare seen by the media as project-driven, donor-driven, closed society organizationsif you listen to the worst side of it which exist out there. When you94

Civil society, old media, and cyberspace - too much talk, but no communication?How manypeople havethe guts tostand up andstart talking?talk about a good initiative that your NGO has carried out it’s only logical andprofessional for a reporter to ask you well how much did this website cost, andwho paid the money? And if a website costs ten times more than what it usuallycosts on the free market, which is often the case the NGOs, then societyand the readers have a good reason to ask why is this? How did you choosethe company? It may seem very petty in your eyes because you’ve done anexcellent job and it’s a great website and many people have worked so hard,but from the perspective of the media there are other issues which are big concerns.As somebody who is actively involved in institutional non-corporate PR Ithink it’s impossible, don’t try to put it on the agenda to educate the media. Itjust won’t happen.P: When NGOs are talking about why journalists don’t understand them, whydonors do not understand them, why company leaders do not understandthem, why the neighbors do not understand them, it is just because there issuch a small overlap between society and NGOs. I honestly think it is useless forNGOs to expect that the media would do something, or for journalists to expectsomething from NGOs. What I would expect from us as NGOs is to stand up andstart talking; how many people have the guts to stand up and start talking inthe NGO sector?Mod: To summarize: talk more. Be braver and proactive in communication.Don’t stay on the safe side. Avoid NGO and institutional jargon.NGOs shouldn’thave to stay onthe safe sideTrain mediaregulatoryand ethicscommissionsP: I hate when people start, it usually happens in Brussels, commenting somethingon a panel with: well to stay on the safe side I would like to say that…Maybesomeone working in Brussels have to stand on the safe side, but we as NGOsand media should stay on the other, we should be more bold in what we do.P: About trying to educate journalists, we’ve had a bitter experience with thatas well. I think what NGOs can do - and are obliged to do - is to train media regulatorycommissions and media ethics commissions. An example from Bulgaria[is], where the bulk of the mainstream media violate their own code of ethics,which they themselves created and signed, on a daily basis and the press andthe broadcast media commissions have done absolutely nothing about it.Mod: Very good idea. Work more proactively with the self-regulatory bodiesof the media when there are violations of the values that NGOs are protecting.Because these regulatory bodies often only react when they have beenofficially addressed by somebody. It’s good to write letters to those regulatoryor self regulatory bodies about issues that you see in the media, and they canreact.P: I would like to tell you about a project that been going on in Poland for severalyears. It’s a web based platform called ngo.pl and it’s an NGO portal. It’stailored information for NGOs but also for wider public and there are civic journalists,professional journalists working outside mainstream media who work forthe portal. There you can find information about interesting projects, interestingresults of projects, many success stories, great projects that people do everyday not only from Poland, but from different countries all over the world. I thinkthis is an added value. It’s not to replace mainstream media, but as NGOs veryoften cannot reach out with their messages, they can tell their story to the civic95

Civil society, old media, and cyberspace - too much talk, but no communication?Interactive andinformative NGOplatforms areusefuljournalist and this person would cover the story and people can read articlesand add something. It has a forum, it’s very interactive. This is also a very goodresource for the media and through this portal you can find experts in differentfields, experts from NGOs - it works very well and it could be replicated in differentcountries I think.The risk is thatit becomes aclosed circlefor NGOsMore interactivemedia and morelistening to viewersNGOs don’thave thepatent of truthP: Yes there is a platform and I am a user of this platform as well, but the greatdanger with something like this, is that it becomes a closed circle for NGOs. Ithas a lot of different interesting information, but it’s written only for us. I am quitesure there is not a lot of people from outside of the sector who are interested inwriting or reading the information on this site. It’s a great difficulty to become aplatform not only for NGOs, but make it attractive also for people from outside.P: What I think NGOs can do in the future is to try and reach out to the public,try to be more direct, for example use modern technology. We see new thingscoming up, for example you have this information channel TV channel andthere are viewers sending pictures and MMS - we could do the same, ask theviewers, listeners or readers on the portal to come up with a story, give us informationand we will give it to the media.P: NGO should talk more but also, as just mentioned - also listen more. Listen tothe public. I think the problem is that NGOs think that they have a patent fortruth and everybody should listen to them, however this is not true all the time.If we are more open and use all this new technology to listen to the public andask the people, do surveys asking the people on the streets what do you thinkabout this new idea or this project? Then we can do it better - and then mediamay listen to us.Mod: You mention that the NGOs don’t have the time to work with the mediaand with the public. I think this is something that a highly specialized NGO canafford, if they are running a hospice or providing another social service theydon’t need to communicate with the media that much. But if an NGO is activein a policy area and it is policy oriented: research, human rights, environ-Not workingwith mediament - not finding time to work with the media means undermining your ownmay underminework. The product of an NGO is not a perfect report on an excellent website,your workthe final product we are looking for is a changed policy. Even the best reportwon’t change anybody’s policy if people don’t hear about it, if they don’tlearn about it, if they don’t debate it. Not working with the media for an NGOthat has any policy agenda is like committing suicide, it’s spending money tono avail. Working with the media, drafting a media strategy and implementingit should come before drafting a report. Because that’s the whole point!Any NGOs that need to talk to the media, be creative!96

Business and civil society- growing divide or getting closer?What is the potential of expanding partnership forneeded social change and reforms? Is there anoutdated binary thinking about the two sectors thatwe have to break? What motivates business and civilsociety actors to cooperate; why do or dont they work?What is the place of CSR in all this: is it just another formof self-promotion and is that OK, or do companies meangood? This discussion deals with the language barriers,stereotypes and assumptions often coming in the wayfor prosperous collaboration between the two sides,bringing in voices from both sides.

Business and civil societyBusiness areinterested inworking withnonprofitsModerator Eva Varga: This is a very diverse group and I am really happy toreport that as a result of a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of persistence, we havesome real live business people in this group as well, because I thought it wouldbe more than appropriate to have the other side represented as well. So we dohave two bankers and one venture capitalist, which are going to be giving ustheir perspective. Here is my first issue: businesses are interested in working withnonprofits and with civil society to achieve social change - but it’s got to helpthem in some way, provide a bottom line and make business sense for them.This is what I hear from business people and it seems to be the general motivation,behind [social] actions of businesses.Participant (P): It is not the only [business] motivationMod: What could be other motivation?P: It can be purely philanthropic, I guess, on the side of business people. Theywant to help someone who is really in need. They want to change somethingbecause they find it important and meaningful, not necessarily thinking of makinghigher profits.The job ofbusinessesis to makemoney,periodBusiness thesedays oftendeclare otherthings theystand forP: I would say that is a risky proposition in some ways, maybe to take one stepback, the job of businesses is to make profit. It is to make money, period. That’swhat a business is set up to do. The whole debate has gotten twisted in recentyears that the job of businesses is also to do socially good things, to adopt amodel of H&M or Marks & Spencer who have flashy CSR programs. At the endof the day, that’s not their job, that’s OK and we as nonprofits, I think, need torespect the fact that they are still the ones putting food on the table for mostof us. That’s their job. If we can accept that even though this may not be ourideological stand, we have a lot of room for working together with business andfinding ways to help businesses to exercise moral interests and become moreinvolved. But at the end of the day, it’s not their job.P: I disagree in a way, because if we would look at the web pages of a lotof big companies right now, they really declare a lot of things they stand for.Among this, the usual goals of making profits, but very often they declare a lotof other things as well and this is the sphere in which NGOs and business entitiescan cooperate. I think there are good examples, we are cooperating with lawfirms [for pro bono legal advice] and although we have a lot of cases, we alsohave a lot of interest from law firms, in fact the amount [of offered assistance] isbigger than the number of the cases. We observe that these attorneys are reallyinvolved in what they do and trying to involve younger lawyers as well. Onthe other hand, we have cases in which has a lovely CSR-dedicated companyaccording to its webpage at the same time are responsible for human rightsabuse, and this is a problem.As individualsmany peopleworking inbusiness wantto do goodP: My company has 50 000 employees in CEE and I can say that people in companiesare different. There are always people and individuals behind businesses,e.g. I as an individual, think I would like to do something meaningful and notonly thinking in profits. This is very important. I heard two days ago on the radiothat in French Telecom which has a lot of people employed, there had recentlybeen 23 suicides. I think it’s very important for people to have a sense behindwhat they are doing. Social corporate responsibility may give them that sense.98

Business and civil societyPro bonowork canhelp withrecruitmentP: I am from an NGO in Czech Republic, and I just can confirm what was justsaid, we have not so much experience on cooperation with business, but westarted cooperation on pro bono basis with bigger law firms recently and theysaid that they had experienced that this new scheme helped them in recruitment.Pro bono work and CSR, people really want to do that and look for somework which makes sense so finally this may help business.Understandingeach otherbetterNGOs areskeptical toworking togetherwith top law firmsMod: This is actually one of the key discussions here - which are the motivesand then understanding the motives of the other party. The key messages thatcame out of the survey [posted online before the session – in two different versionsfor businesses and NGOs] were the need to understand each other better.When being asked the question “What do you think that the other party hasbenefited from cooperation?” it was really interesting to see what businessesthink that the NGOs are benefitting and what we think businesses benefit fromthe relationship, because the views don’t match.P: I am coming from an international organization that exists for more than 10years, promoting human rights and pro bono work. We started with an assumptionthat we know the NGOs and we know the civil society because we workwith them, especially similar NGOs to ourselves, and now we have to get toknow lawyers and law firms to convince them to do pro bono. It turned out thatit was a wrong assumption, the lawyers had 5-6 top reasons why they work probono and contribute their time and skills for free and in most cases the top oneis to help as much as they can for free. However NGOs that could need somelegal assistance they are extremely skeptical to working together with some bigglobal corporate law firms and uneasy with the situation. In the end probably75% of our time is taken up by motivating the NGO part of the equation andnot the law firms. There is a need of organizations to increase understandingand bridge the gap because the gap is huge, corporations in skyscrapers don’tmeet grassroots organizations naturally.Mod: An important question: “Do we as NGOs commit enough resources tobuilding bridges toward businesses?” The general opinion seems to be “No,we don’t. We try maybe once and if it doesn’t work out, we never try again”.NGOs don’t Another important point is about the matchmaking, are there enough mechanismsto make good matches between businesses and NGOs? Or is there acommit enoughto building problem of not having a stock exchange where you can look up potentialbridges with investment targets according to your wishes, risk and resources, you can pick inbusiness whom you are going to invest? You may have heard about the social stock exchangethat was launched first in Brazil, in the Sao Paolo stock exchange as acivil society initiative, one guy persisted and there is now a list of NGOs and youcan basically invest in them trough this stock exchange mechanism. A questionto one of our business representatives: Why would a company like CitiBankpartner or work with the civil sector?P: I am from CitiBank in Bratislava and work as public affairs officer. I cannotspeak on behalf of the whole sector, but of the company’s motivation andexperience, and maybe add some personal observations. Back to the questionabout the motivation, first of all what we have to realize is that the keymotivation and objective of existence for any business is to generate profit.We are doing it for our stakeholders and our main stakeholders are the share-99

Business and civil societyholders, they are making the decisions. As a matter of consequence, we havethe resources, which we can use for different purposes including corporate socialresponsibility. If I have to put it in one sentence at the bank we say that weOur bank feelsfeel responsibility for the environment in which we operate and our people live.responsibility forTwo key things [we like to invest in] the business in which we operate and thethe environmentpeople who are our people. It is very important to realize that any business iswhere weoperate and our somehow related to the environment in which it operates, and its employeespeople live have their own connections. The stakeholders who are very important in thesedifficult times are our employees. If we speak about CSR from the bottom line,about social, economic and environmental impact of what we do and translatingthis into different programs, currently I would say that most important isthe social aspect of the social corporate responsibility, the way we treat ourpeople, the way we speak and communicate difficult decisions we have totake. The motivation is very generally that we feel this responsibility, we operatein a world in which we live with our employees and we understand thatour stakeholders are not only shareholders but also the external stakeholdersincluding employees, and civil society players.Funding isthe mainbenefit forNGOsMod: Some more examples from the survey - it was not a statistically significantsurvey - but I think we got some good indications of what people are experiencing.It was emphasized on the business side when asked about the preferrednature of relationship, that giving advice to NGOs and the benefit thatbusinesses would get from the relationship was not the money but being activein the environment, taking care of the people they’re working with or that theirbusiness affects. The same thing, the same question asked to NGOs resulted inthis: funding. Funding is the key benefit that NGOs see in the relationship withthe business. I am challenging you to start thinking about how to change thisthinking and approach because I think that in today’s environment there are alot more opportunities that businesses can offer, also they are short of moneyand we must be creative and providing them with solutions and giving themother opportunities as well.100

Business and civil societySocial corporate P: I am from Bulgaria, and I would say that social corporate responsibility is notresponsibility ishow much money you give for it but the way you make your money. From thisnot how muchassumption it is obvious that civil organizations can partner with companies notmoney you giveonly for the money, for funding but also in other aspects: help companies tobut how youearn itoperate more responsible because organizations are experts in the fields ofcommunity and social change. My observation is that there are much moreproblems of communication in terms of languages; organizations and companiesspeak totally different languages. Mechanisms would be useful for bothgroups to communicate better but obviously the motives for the relations forboth sides are different, so it’s time to be honest and put on the table what wewant to achieve.NGOs arealso anindustryP: I am from a Capital organization, and also wanted to make this point aboutthe resources of NGOs which they can promote, I would call it an industry. Oneof the points is communication which is very important, I agree that – I think theNGOs and the corporations speak different languages so one message herewould will be to develop common language, to develop a matrix that eachof them. Coming back to the funding perspective. Companies can providefunding but only from the profit that is generated. And this is the net profit. Theallocation of this net profit is discretionary to the corporation, so there is no rightfor an NGO to claim part of this profit. I think that the demands of the NGOsshould change - they do not participate in this net profit but could participateabove this line. Participating [in generating profit] above this line in day to daybusiness as business partners creates an opportunity for NGOs where they mayprovide additional values for corporations and vice versa. The corporationsprovide added value for NGOs if the NGO doesn’t limit [the company’s] growthby claiming part of this discretionary value which is the profit. I think there arenumber of examples where NGOs and corporations can work together also ina for-profit way, it doesn’t matter what are the means of achieving a goal if thegoal is the social impact, increasing life expectancy, fight poverty etc. However,by only sticking to this donor-recipient model NGOs limit their growth; byparticipating like business partners above the line, above the profit [necessaryfor growth], they can scale their businesses and achieve social impact.More creativityneeded to find newtypes of interactionsMod: The business respondents in the survey were for this, saying yes, NGOscould and should work with companies, helping them to develop their corebusiness, instead of trying to take a part of the pie which the shareholders andeveryone else is also interested in. There needs to be more creativity in findingnew types of interactions.Practicallyhow toengagebusinessP: I am from Lithuania and my comment is about social change and corporatesocial responsibility and the idea is to split these concepts a bit because theyare slightly different and can mean very different things. Then about the practicalaspect, how to engage businesses? One thing is when a business says thatthey are ready to offer a piece of advice, what does that really mean thatyou should necessarily need to follow it? My question is whether businesses feelthe same, are they ready to offer partnership because at the end of the dayI completely agree that they are oriented towards creating profit in the short,medium and long terms. How many of you have been able to persuade businesses,to actually offer human resource help?P: I am from mixed corporate and NGO background in Poland, and I would like101

Business and civil societySmalldifference isa completelydifferent thingto draw your attention to two things that I personally find very important: first ofall, we are very often victims of too high generalizations, if you go down youwill find small businesses in small communities cooperating very well, becausethey are neighbors, all love the same vicinity and on the level of small communitiesthe motives of small business are very close to those of NGOs. It’s aboutcleaner water, it’s about better education for the children - because basicallythey are also citizens of the very same community and it is easy to find obviouscommon goods and common goals for everybody. The problem starts withhuge businesses and especially international businesses, the dilemma is thatthey have huge money and it is really worth looking at this money, but then thepartnership and conversation is getting difficult. On the first hand the key barrieris mistrust because NGOs approaching the business are approaching it withpreset assumptions in mind of the immorality of business. The rationalattitude will be to say that they have a huge budget for CSR so let ususe our negotiating power, to persuade them to do something thatwill bring social change instead of going there saying: “You see, weare going to do something, we will not negotiate the goal with youbecause we are the masters of defining social goals and social values”.So mistrust is one part, on the other hand there is the lack of abilityto engage business, there are fantastic people in business and ifthey believe in you and in the presented common vision, they will gofor it. We should not go to business with mediocre propositions: “giveus money because there are hungry children in Poland” - this is notinspiring. We need to go to them with good diagnosis, with inspiringlabels and visions, and I am sure sooner or later it will happen. So, secondlythere is a barrier and lack of positive, engaging propositions.Business is impatient because of this difference of communicationsand languages. They would like us to come to them and say “This,and that will take 3 years to do” and we’re coming saying “Listen, letus do something for the good of this or that”. It is important that wehave these new mechanisms designed for different situations, becauseas I said for small business we don’t really need to worry, itworks well. And again, we have to forget about these moralistic assumptionswe carry, because there is nothing wrong with making money, let’sstop treating all business as bloodthirsty capitalists from XIX century that suck ourblood. We need in addition to encourage business to change their perceptionof NGO as the poor relative.The paradigmwe are livingin may also bechangingMod: The trust deficit is very true and it came out of every comment and everysurvey we received. So the question for us will be “How do we reduce the trustdeficit?” Some of you already mentioned communication, providing information,listening, speaking the same language and also looking at how the paradigmthat we are working and living within might be shifting is important too.Let’s not mix objectives with methods and ways to shift those objectives. Whenwe use the word “industry” or “efficiency” or “measure”, many say let’s rejectthat because these are business terms, but these are also terms that anyonecan use in their operations. The key is the objectives and what we are trying toachieve by being efficient, by measuring, or, if you wish, even by treating uslike industry. It was funny, during lunch one of the business speakers said “Thisis all industry – look at the number of people that are attending this forum”and somebody else that said “Industry? You can’t call that industry!” This was afunny little incident to illustrate this.102

Business and civil societyApproach variesgreatly betweensmall and largebusinessesAlso bigcorporationshave limitedbudgetsWho wasbehind thedonors -businessNGOs monitorbusiness entitiesP: For me it is not only the communication and language, but the legitimacymix that the NGOs should present to business. We have worked with businessand the point is if go to big corporate companies with multinational branchesetc, the expectations and communication entry at the first point is much differentthan if you go to your local food-chain store and tell them “We need aplayground for the kids in the neighborhood”. The commitment and motivationmechanisms for businesses vary, and I would agree and confirm that as anNGO representative, we NGOs sometimes lack the knowledge and informationabout how to present to business, first to economize their time, we know thatthey don’t have time to listen to descriptions of all the projects we do. We reallyhave to come to the point where we meet and we are efficient, both theNGOs and the business. I think there is space for people like our guests fromthe business here to say “You know, we don’t have time for this”, this will reallybe improving both ours and their efficiency and making something good. Wespeak about the environment, people, social issues and involving people, butthen again from the NGO perspective, without being extremists, there is a needfor transparency and honesty when it comes to issues such as the environmentand the ultimate social motives.P: When you go to big corporation you have to think about the fact that alsobig corporations have limited budgets, often a special program for the kind ofprojects they sponsor or invest in. This is very important I think, NGOs cannot justgo and say “We have this and we do this” but also need to ask what the businessintend to do and make a discussion out of it. Many people come in andyou just cannot help everybodyP: Today there was this question whether we understand or remember the pastand how the civil society has developed over 20 years. As I am looking backand thinking about whom donors supported and who was behind the donors– business. And they supported civil society and created a whole range of civilsociety in our countries through NGOs. Why did they do it? Because they knewthat they had to create a proper environment, - also business environment,policy, legislation, etc. That happened over this last 20 years and also from thepoint of view of NGOs many people are well prepared for business, for high evengovernment positions, because of having this experience from NGOs. They hadto live with an exact amount of money, they know how to put together things,how to manage it, communicate etc. Over the years this was the best preparationfor whatever position they were to reach, today they are heading all kindof important institutions, even businesses. In terms of possible ways of cooperationit is worth noticing that also our businesses has started being international,going across national borders for example supported by country aid programs.Why not going out of the country together in partnership and cooperation withlocal NGOs, to help support social changes in other countries as it was donehere by those donors and projects in the beginning of the ’90?Mod: What kind of interactions might there be between NGOs and businesses?One is donor-recipient. What else?P: It can happen that the role or even the goal of an NGO is to monitor theactivity of business entities, this can be an obstacle for cooperation so this canbe also a kind of interaction: monitoring, being a watchdog. These NGOs must103

Business and civil societybe independent from business entities.CollectiveinitiativeMicro loansP: Collective initiative, our experience is working quite a bitwith private donors but also with associations, with companiesform particular sectors and there is an idea to start a collectiveinitiative, social change within the sector through research, advocacy,because at the end of the day an organization alonecould not do this. You need at least 4-5-6 organization for thisto start. We’ve been successful in the pharmaceutical sector,the construction sector and it works. The thing is that obviouslynow [during the financial crisis] it’s not a priority for most ofthem, the bottom line is what really matters these days.P: There is one example of cooperation between an NGO and a bank, wherethey did a micro credit loan program for poor people, where the fallout gradeof these loans is guaranteed by an NGO, whenever poor people cannot payback the loan it is repaid to the bank by the NGO. Basically the bank is makingreal business and profit given that you have no defaults on the loans.P: We had an example in Bulgaria where banks gave loans that were securedby NGOs for starting up new social enterprises.BarterCustomeracquisitionP: Barter, meaning the sort of barter where a business provides goods or servicesin exchange for publicity, visibility, connections. Monetization, meaningthat NGOs provide the good, or service and then it is monetized and turnedinto some actual cash that the organization can use. These are different thanthe donor-recipient relationship, because it is a write off for the business as opposedto something that they have to report on. Another example for businesspartnership, a bank launching a credit card that is branded, a percentageof the expenses of that credit card goes to benefit an NGO or a coalition ofNGOs. It can expand the customers’ base of the bank and it is actually a businesspartnership as the bank could be making more.P: NGOs can bring a customer acquisition and customer retention value forthe business and the business is making profit. Part of this profit can go directlyto the NGO which makes the operation of this NGO more scalable than in thedonor-recipient scenario.CooperativesP: In this brochure there is one beautiful quote from Ferenc Miszlivetz, that thecommon good is one of the biggest deficits in our society. I can give you anexample: businesses at local level using the experience and structures of NGOsand the civil society type of self organization, for example a local developmentassociation. Most of them are in fact NGOs uniting businesses, all type of cooperatives(cooperative is not a socialist word), local level individuals uniting forcommon good, all kind of credit cooperatives – there is a lot of infrastructuresand organizations which are in fact interactions of business/civil society typeactivities. I don’t mean public-private partnerships, but rather uniting individualsbecause the sum of individual interests is more than the interest one by one. Anexample: a few small producers doing something in a village, cannot buy theirentry to the market themselves individually because of the cost, but united in aor with assistance from a local development organization, the cost is more reasonablein comparison with what they can achieve and this is an example of104

Business and civil societyThe interaction withbusiness and theirway of doing thingsis inevitablecommon good. Finally I don’t quite agree with this statement about the benefitfrom NGOs and their history in our region, I think it’s rather mixed record in termsof business benefiting from people being educated through civil society activism,but interacting with businesses is beneficial for civil society organizationsbecause businesses provide the sense of more result-based action, as they arefocused on delivering things and something measurable. When analyzing thisdiscussion, it will be very good to distinguish between types of businesses andbetween various types of interaction, if you are working with small businesses isone thing: if you are cooperating with big businesses it is totally different.P: Just a quick point on whether NGOs are becoming more business-like, whateverthis is supposed to mean, I remember 10 years ago and even earlier, theway that donors approached NGOs and what they required from them, andcompare it to nowadays, now, both in terms of goals and objectives, as well asof results and “the bottom line”. I think in the development of our region andthe whole society, this interaction with business and their way of doing things isalmost inevitable and it might become better.Responsibility and P: I am from a foundation working in the Balkans: Albania, Macedonia andtransparency also Kosovo, and the scenario with civil society is not very well developed and theregoes the other are not much business resources. I think [speaking] the point made about responsibility,that business has to be more responsible and transparent, it actuallywaygoes the other way. One of the first things I think good, solid business with goodand solid CSR programs would ask an NGO is “OK, provide us with your annualfinancial statement, your annual report, and those things that make NGOsmore business-like.” That for sure will stop many NGOs which are not operatingin a business fashion or in an ethical fashion to the extent that they should be.Business-likewhat does itmean?AdvisoryfunctionMod: About business-like: does that mean more transparent, more efficient,more visible, and more professional, or does that mean you go after profit? Iassume when we’re saying more businesslike, we mean the first set of thingsbecoming a little more compatible. Blurring the line more in the way we work,the lack of common language, that barrier can be dealt with.P: I think that the role of a non-profit potentially is an advisor for business - let’ssay an Environmental Defense Fund can advise the businesses how to savethe planet while they’re saving their bottom line. It is a good role that we canplay because we do have special abilities, knowledge and understanding. Iam American and I like games so I am going to propose simple game, if yourepresent an NGO, can you raise your hand? I know who the businesses are, (Iam a fundraiser, got my eye on you), how many of you NGOs are more interestedin better interaction with business? Right, that’s why we are all here. Thefinal question that is nagging me though, is how many of you have more than50% business representation on your Board of directors? 4 – and not everyone.For some people it’s not an option, that’s right, but it was just interesting. Thebusiness people in the room: how many of you sit on non-profit boards? Thepoint is that looking at the future, if we want better interaction, we should bringbusiness in our world as much as we want them to let us into theirs.P: I am from Bosnia and Herzegovina, we are a foundation and this year westarted two for-profit businesses. Making this clear distinction between us andthem, neither help us, nor them. To categorize measuring efficiency as a busi-105

Business and civil societyClear dividesbetween us andthem serves no oneness term is in fact dangerous. If you are a non-profit and you don’t measureyour efficiency, you are in trouble or will be soon. Those are not business terms,those are terms of doing your job well, regardless if it brings profit or not. Speakingabout bringing profit, short term, midterm or long term, and it is up to nonprofitpeople to show that you will have more profit if you take care of youremployees, the community, the environment, people in need. This is somethingthat non-profit people somehow don’t manage to say.P: Let me demonstrate the difference of languages, first of all that it is importantto mention that CSR has two fields for me: first the corporate governance andsecond the corporate citizenship. Corporate citizenship is easy, it’s about donations,charitable activities, programs that businesses run, that NGOs run andbusinesses are supporting and so on. But the corporate governance aspect isCorporateoften forgotten, if you take the 100 top economic entities in the world guessgovernance ishow many of them are national economies? – less than 1/3. 2/3 of the largestforgotteneconomies in the world are corporations. A lot of power is in the hands of corporations.That’s why, in my view, you really have to get close to corporations,even if you do not have to or you do not like to. You have to understand thelanguage of businesses because the power is now (unfortunately from yourperspective perhaps) in the hands of corporations. It doesn’t mean however,and I am on three boards, that we don’t have an understanding and passionfor CSR. It’s not just like a hobby; it’s about improving the situation. Corporategovernance is about distributing the power, about understanding and holdingpower and this power is somehow translated or transformed into money. If wetake the example of CEE countries now, for the last three decades we haveseen a change of situation, however if we go back corporations have beenhere for centuries. In history when we track corporate social responsibility as aterm, it has been used for about 10 years, if you go back and seek for NGOsor civil society organizations like Amnesty International or Green Peace you willfind hardly any of them are older than 50 years. It really goes back to the 1960s,however it doesn’t mean that the concept didn’t exist before, it may have existedbut it wasn’t about learning from each other. So to us you are very youngindustry, if I may use the term, tous you are a new world and anew partner that we are learninghow to live with, but you alsoreally have to demonstrate andprove that we have to cooperatewith you. Being a bit criticalwith the risk of sounding like “thebad guy”, some five years ago Imade my very first CSR presentationto a local network and I saidabout the business sector: Wesee you quite often as marketingagencies, we put up some objectivesand goals which we wantyou to meet. That’s our fault butthat’s also your attitude towardsus. Quite often we see you as atool how to improve the image ofthe company, we see the poten-106

Business and civil societyNeed for moredialogue,exchange andfeedbacktial of you as an instrument for public relations and then we push. It’s really upto you to resist or to push back, it is really up to you to prove that this is incorrectapproach. I miss partnerships with equal and balanced partners on both sides,I want to see more professionalism from your side, because I don’t see manyprofessionals from NGOs. Maybe in this room there are 100% of them, but inmy experience of many NGOs in Slovakia, and also the broader CEE region,I can tell you there are very few professionals. You come to us with very shortgoals, ad hoc projects and not with strategies or well formulated concepts, thisis something that we are really missing. We want professionals to come to usand say: “This is what you do and this is what we can help you to do, maybe bychanging a bit of the habits that you have”. Also NGOs have to change andaccept us as a partner and being professionals: “Here we are and this is whatwe do, work with us”. Not: “Please, help us, please, work with us, try to work withus”, this is about an equal partnership. This is what I said 5 years ago and I stillfeel that it is all about the donor-recipient relationship which I think is wrong, weshould be partners because we have a lot to give to each other. It’s also aboutlearning how to live with each other. I quite often miss the process of feedback.It is often: “This is a program we would like to launch, can you help us launch itand provide us with funds” we say: “OK, let’s discuss” and then if we like it, weprovide you with funds. When the program is over, we see the final report andthen the partnership is over. There are no follow-up initiatives, no follow-up strategyor new concepts of doing something. In the midterm we are missing thistrue approach from the third sector - it’s about professionalism and about initiatives.The situation in Slovakia also changed, ten years ago we have lots of USbased funds and big funding organizations providing a lot of funds to the localNGOs, it was quite easy to live with this money. Frankly, many NGOs used thismoney very easily for very different programs. There was nice output from theseprograms, but the situation has changed and now these funds have moved.There is a new situation that you NGOs are facing and you have to learn how tolive with this experience. One of the solutions maybe is to use corporate socialresponsibility or create a social enterprise. There is a potential, the door is open,and so it’s not about a closed door or knocking on door that can’t be opened.Mod: We set up a business advisory network, which works with us, it is set of probono working individuals who are not just interested in our model but as individualsthey want to champion a certain cause that is important to them and theyTook us 3 years are looking for somebody to partner with and somebody who can introduceto figure out the them to an environment that they are not yet familiar with. It took us three yearspartnership to figure out the partnership with CitiBank, so short term versus long time reallymatters, we needed to follow up several times and actually to start over againand again, to explain, test and pilot the idea before it became reality. Havingsomebody that you can rely on in the long term gives a sense of security, “ok,what I am doing is going to make sense in the longer term so it is important forbusinesses to experiment and gain experience”. Going back for one minute toventure philanthropy - basically this is an engaged way of being philanthropicwhich we introduce as well and it seems to be working for some. This as wellemphasizes the point that money is not everything that businesses can provide;you can get assistance with strategy, working methods, outside advice and reallycreate win-win situations.P: I believe that corporate social responsibility should be used as a substituteto “sustainable development”, it is about limiting using the current resources for107

Business and civil societythe benefit of the future generations so that they have the same resourcesMod: Looking into the future, what do you expect the tendencies to be in next10-20 years? One of the surveys gave me really interesting respond which I wantto share with you: there is a shift in the paradigm in the sense that NGOs andbusinesses are not longer going to be distinguished by the legal form or thatone is after the profit and the other is after only the social goals. They are goingto be sharing objectives and working towards social change, to achieve socialThe way we impact, therefore, they are going to be actors in the same market place, competewith each other or working together as partners. Secondly, the way weare puttinga price to are putting a price to our products, our input and our impact has to change,our products we can no longer be measuring in terms of money and the prices of cost of production,but we will need to take in account what is the social cost of makingmay changesomething. Businesses will change their pricing practices and the way they lookat value and this is where NGOs can be extremely helpful, because they knowor should know better, how to put a price on the social value that they create.There issuspiciontowardsNGOsP: I don’t think the assumption how corporations view NGOs was completelyhonest, by using this macro level and compare how many corporations thereare in the world. When you go to the micro level, into a country or locality, andactually deal with the NGOs there, my suspicion is that a lot of corporationsdon’t actually know what to make of NGOs, they are suspicious of what weare. They do not see us as future competitors or that we will be able to providesocial services for a lower price or have a clear orientation towards profit.It is not only that NGOs lack vision of partnership, but I’m not sure that businessesare really willing to engage in those partnerships, in any relationship there isalways one part that cares more and in this case I think that NGOs care moresimply because we are the new kids on the block and we want the partnership.I’m not sure how much businesses are really interested in letting us in, they arealready often participating in government structures around CEE. My questionis if we are not making a mistake when assuming that this will be replicated inCEE simply because we are much more corporate minded. Our society doesn’thave the same structure, nobody says that our society will have a strong middleclass. I don’t see it happening, we have some individuals that provide soundkind of democracy, but really we don’t have the accountability mechanismsin place. It is businesses that most of the times decide which law should bepassed, it is businesses that in the end put in people in the government.Are weviewed asidealistsand tooenthusiastic?P: I agree that I’m not sure how businesses look at us, NGOs, and many times Isee they look at us with this “Oh, you are these idealistic people, living in yourown world, doing stuff which is very nice but it is not related to the real life andreal problems we are dealing with”. I am wondering if there is a need from usto maybe cut down our enthusiasm when we present our activities, be moreserious, more frowned, impose the harsh realities of life in order to convincecompanies that we are also viable partners.P: I would say “absolutely not!” particularly because I have seen the wonder inthe eyes of business people that chose to do something as illogical as work fora cause. There is something nice about that, there is something comforting thatthere are people like us in the world who are willing to be idiots and changethe world, it’s a nice thing about humanity. However, we have to back it upwith their language and the sale’s catch has to be tempered with reality but I108

Business and civil societyMotivatingstaff throughvolunteerismdon’t think you need a frown when you say it. Additionally, when talking aboutthat paradigm shift online, it has already started. The role of business is to makeprofit, and businesses are becoming more aware that by participating in certainactivities they are ensuring their own profit, be that by ensuring motivatedstaff through volunteerism, shifted GE to more green technology, etc becausethey know that’s where the money is - wonderful! The big question is how wecan assist and still be relevant; in some sectors we may even cease to be relevant.Social services have a long history because they just are not profitable.But in environment e.g. business could play a crucial role for the betterment ofsociety.The passion in P: Let’s not assume that idealism and enthusiasm are something specific only toentrepreneurs NGOs, the passion I have seen in some entrepreneurs is amazing, however thatcan be this is something they will expect from us is totally true. Further we as NGOs needamazing to do market segmentations for our donors; we always have the good guysfrom the corporate sector telling us that they are really interested in partnership.Just recently one of our proposals was turned down by a bank because it wastoo involving, even though we were able of course to negotiate the level of engagement,they really didn’t want us to go so far. I think we really need to seewhich companies have the capacity and the desire to be our partners, whichones are really interested in mid terms engagement in a very specific issue, andwhich ones are only shooting for PR because they exist as well! The key is howmuch do you get in return and how much do you compromise.Business people arenot cold peopleP: Business people are not cold people, we are also warm-hearted. We shouldn’tspeak about us and them, we should speak together and build partnershipswhich will be really helpful for both sides, and this is a goal for the future to buildthese partnerships more strongly.109

What about the future?Our world is changing faster than anybody expected.20 years ago we lived under communist regimes. Therewas no free media and free and fair elections were onlya dream. 15 years ago we didn’t really know cell phonesand emails. 10 years ago there was no google. 5 yearsago there were no social websites. Now we can notonly vote, but - thanks to new technologies – very easilygather, find supporters and have direct influence onsocial and political life. Never in history communicationand participation has been as easy as now. So how docan we use it better? What will shape the relationshipsbetween various actors within the public sphere, howcan we anticipate new trends and what will this meanfor our future work?

What about the future?The revolutionsof ‘89, internet,Google andweb 2.0Igor Janke (moderator): All of my friends were deeply frustrated under theundemocratic regime in the 80’s, we didn’t know what to do with our lives, andone day just a few months later in 1989 communism collapsed. We woke up in acompletely other country, we had a new government, and a few months laterI had a job in a normal independent newspaper. I could write almost anythingI wanted, I could influence, I could do some things for my country - in one dayI became a completely different person. I woke up in another reality and thiswas the first revolution in my life. But the newspaper I worked for looked like a19th century factory, we used old type machines, and to prepare the layoutof the newspaper we used scissors, glue and paper. The headquarters lookedvery ugly, was smelly and [remained] deep in the previous time.And then came the second revolution, a few months later an investor cameand bought [everything] completely new, the most modern equipment, herented a new office, we moved, and a few months later we were one of themost modern newspapers in Europe! He employed an excellent designer whoprepared the new layout for us, and a few months later we had one of the mostmodern and I think beautiful newspapers in Europe - and it was just 3 years afterthe reality of 88. The investor raised our salaries 3 times and I bought a computerand a car, and again I was in a different reality.Then again a few years later came another revolution, because we got internet,email and cell phones and it changed completely our style of work. Itchanged my life. A few years later came another revolution with Google etc– which has also changed for many of us: our work, our way of life. Then cameweb 2.0 and we could all of us create our own media and my work againlooked completely different. We are just 20 years later than that moment whenI was a very sad student with no future in the communist state and during onetwoyears I jumped from the 19th to the 21st century and now I run my ownwebsite and I can do it here from my cell phone – all that happened in 20 years.So now let’s talk what will happen in the next 20 years, and I will ask Julian first,he knows the outcomes of an inquiry into the future made by Carnegie UK Trust,discussing some drivers of change in Great Britain, and we would like you tocomment on that.Julian Popov: One very interesting thing that Igor said was that there wereRevolutions several revolutions recently, so probably the first trend as we are starting to talkhappen more and about the future we should realize that revolutions happen more and more often.So instead of thinking that the world will be looking the way we know it, wemore oftenshould probably be looking at the next year, and probably the next year therewill be two [revolutions] if the space between them is becoming so close.I also remember from this morning or last night a joke from exactly the time thatIgor was describing, about a guy who is traveling in a bus looking at anotherman and asking – excuse me are you not Chinese? And the other man says no Iam not. At the next stop he asks the man you are Chinese aren’t you? The mansais I am not. A minute later he says you must be Chinese, and the man says:no I am NOT Chinese. Later he asks again and the man says: ok I am Chinesethen, [and the first man asks] but why are your eyes not like that then? I thinkthat we have a little bit of a problem that we create Chinese all the time andwe chase them about their eyes, we ask people: you are a socialist, you are a111

What about the future?The problemof the growingnumber of well-offLife expectancynasty socialist and then we ask them if you are a socialist, why don’t you lookafter the poor. We have another situation in which I think it is quite relevant -especially for me as a Bulgarian - the good intention but corrupting influencesof our European Union membership [in terms of] agricultural subsidies – which Idon’t personally support, I am a minority in that sense. I don’t think that Bulgarianeeds agricultural subsidies just because some French farmers insist to havethem. Agricultural subsidies have a massive corrupting influence on a countrythat is not completely resistance to corrupt practices, and nonetheless the EuropeanUnion insists on having these agricultural subsidies, well why don’t youuse [the money] in the proper way?I think the same Chinese syndrome we have when we discuss civil society andwe root our ideas about civil society and what it should deal with to exactlythese very exciting years of ’89, none of us will live again so we have to acceptthat. That is the most exciting time in my life and in everybody’s life and it is notgoing to happen again – such excitement and such belief in the future! I triedto look at something that is probably not so exciting, but will probably definethe problems of civil society in the next 20 years - and I think that the main problemthat will define civil society and will determine where it goes, will be ourability or inability to deal with the growing world wealth. We often – including inthe Carnegie inquiry – define the problem as the growing divide between thepoor and the rich. I think the problem that we are facing is exactly the opposite,or it is not a problem it is a huge challenge, and this is the narrowing gapbetween the poor and rich, and the fact that there is a growing populationwhich is growing wealthier and wealthier. The world is not capable of dealingwith that at the moment, if we continue to develop and live in the way we liveand run an economy like the one we live in today. In this case I can give youlot of examples of economic growth of China and I think that anyone who wantto know what will happen to civil society and NGOs in 10-15 years should lookinto what is happening in China every day, what the tendencies are there. Itis the growth of population, but also the wealth of population, which is puttingincredible stress on the resources that we use. If I try to be more specific I thinkthat the main challenges and the main problem that we face in the next 20years will be 1) climate change and energy security in one sort of package and2) advance of medical treatment.Children born today could very realistically expect to live 450 years. Just imaginewhat a mad prospect that is. Last year in England, quite seriously peoplewere discussing the possibilities for real immortality. I would give you one otherstatistics, US spends 18% of GDP on health services - which is a staggeringamount and Obama wants to change somehow the distribution of that. Half ofthese 18 % [of GDP, that is spent on health services] are spent on the last year ofpeople’s life. So that gives some indication of how ageing population and theadvance of medical treatment - and the cost of medical treatment - will putadditional pressure on resources and society. And the greatest injustice and unfairnesse.g. in Britain appears to be exactly in that world: the distribution of advancedmedical treatment. If you have cancer for example, some people canbe cured with more advanced treatments and some other cannot be curedwith more advanced treatments. This [injustice] is going to grow and if you liveuntil you are 150 years, you can do the math and see that it just doesn’t workout if you are to put all these resources into looking after a 150 years old person.112

What about the future?The other problem of course is climate change and energy security. We veryoften don’t think and talk about that as a civil society, but it is a huge problemin the current economy, and the environment is not capable of coping withthis rate of change in climate. We will have to expect another revolution ofResource usagethe type of revolution that Igor described and mentioned earlier [dealing with]and preservationthe pressure that climate change is putting on the world. The climate changescience - not the change of climate itself - and the political consensus overclimate change will inevitably lead [be a top priority] in the next few years, noteven [talking about] 20 years but fewer. Revolution in the car industry, revolutionin transport [systems] and many other things. We most of us saw a fewyears ago, how the 100 watt light bulb disappeared, and we were not engagedin this problem, we don’t know why it happened. But this is just one littlesingle [piece] in a massive chain of events that will follow, which will force usto change our way of life and our dealing with resources and problems linkedwith climate change. Climate change is a very bad term by the way, it pointsat something that is very unclear.One thing that linked with this, is energy security and the energy security of theworld is under severe threat because of the expected peak of oil usage, endingof oil reserves, and this will be very soon - according to some predictions alreadyin 2013. The demand for oil has become much higher than the discoveryof new oil reserves, [the finding of] the last big oil reserve was around the mid70s and since then all other oil reserves [found] has been smaller and smallerand smaller. The pressure that this will put on international relations and on internationalnegotiations could also be quite severe. So I will stop here so thatwe can have some time for discussion, but I think this narrowing gap betweenrich and poor will have to be investigated very closely in order to analyze whatwill happen in the next 20 years, how society will work and how we will react tothese changes.Igor Janke: Now Ivan is to comment from our CEE perspectiveExpect thechangeIvan Krastev: There is an American former vice president, who is not veryfamous for his intelligence but he is famous for saying the future is not what itused to be. And I do believe that this is very important because one of the majorthings when we talk about the future, 20-30-50 years ago the future was aproject. E.g. if you were living in Bulgaria in the 1960’s we knew how the futurewas going to look like. We didn’t know when it is going to come, but we knewwhat it was going to look like. The problem is now we are starting to think aboutthe future the way the insurance companies think about it, it is very much aboutrisks and how you calculate risks and opportunities. And I think in this kind ofway, we central Europeans have one kind of advantage and Igor made it veryclear. We have seen in our personal lives how certain things that looks as kind ofobvious by nature, can collapse. There is a good title of a book of an Americansociologist about the last communist generation which was called “everythingwas forever – until it was not anymore” and I do believe that this is very important,because we should try to mobilize this type of experience that we have.I am just going to put 3 drivers that I believe are really important. One is that demographyis really going to be much more important than democracy as themain d-word in the next 10-15 years. Just to give you some statistics to imaginethe scale, there are more people living in the world now than the number of113

What about the future?people that have ever lived. Imagine, for the whole history of humanity, for thefirst time there are more people alive than people dead. This is a huge scale,many of the things that we are talking about; we are still trying to figure outbased on the experience of a totally different sized population.Ageing10% of Bratislavaare immigrantsAs a second part of this driver, there is ageing and ageing is a very special problemfor Central and Eastern Europe which are among the countries that mostquickly are ageing, Ukraine and Bulgaria and CEE in general are in the lead.Why I am saying this? All the civil society organizations have been obsessedwith the idea of the young – you are talking about youth, it’s about the young.In 20 years there are going to be many more old people and people gettingolder and older. This is going to influence the political process and the publicimagination, and I agree very much with Julian: it is not so much about incomeinequality, but it is very much about health provision inequality – this is going tomake our societies equal or unequal. Equality is not about simply consumptionthe way we are thinking today, but it is very much about access to health, andwhen you are dying and how you are dying. This is of course going also going tochange the family structure and I do think this will become critically important.The second driver I believe is going to be immigration. There is one major differencebetween Eastern and Western Europe today - and this is not that weused to be communist and they did not - the major difference is that they havea huge flow of immigrant population already and CEE doesn’t. We have traditionalminorities which is different. Look at Western Europe, and see to whatextent it is becoming shaped by the flow of immigration and you are going tosee the future. All this talk about tolerance, intolerance, xenophobia etc aregoing to look quite different when in the city of Bratislava, 10% of the populationis black or Muslim. And this is not going to be the Muslim that you know fromthe 15th century, but ones that come from places to which you normally do notwant to go. I do believe that this is going to be important and it is kind of ironythat 20 years after Dahrendorf wrote his book “Reflections on the Revolutionof Europe”, a book with the same title was published this year by a quite wellknown American social critique Christopher Coldwell - and it was about the islamizationof Europe. The book itself is not what I am recommendingyou, but you can see from this how much the perspective hasbeen changed.Historydoesn’t matteranymoreThe third thing that I very much want to put into our discussion isthe internet and some of the unintended consequences of theinternet. One of them is the rise of extremism. There is a great studybeing done by Hassan Stein and others about group polarizationand they make a very simple point. In internet communities moreand more you have likeminded people talking to each other. Iknow it was also discussed in one of the groups about the media;the fact is that people becoming much more extreme in theirviews. This [becomes a] type of extremization and radicalization ofthe opinion within societies, the fact is that we have less and less incommon, because the state is losing its monopoly over socializationand education. See what happened with history and knowledgeabout history. In a funny way Fukuyama was right, historyended in 1989 because history does not matter anymore. If youtry to check the historical knowledge of students today, you are114

What about the future?going to see that no matter that they can Google history here and there, theydon’t have a historical knowledge through which they go through experiences.They don’t have a real interest in the experience of the people who were livingbefore them because they are not on Facebook. On Facebook we don’t havepeople who have died. I do think it is very important to think about this type ofunintended consequences and how they are going to shape and form organizationsand actions.Citizen actinglike on theconsumermarketMy last point has to do with the mode of action. This is something that has beensaid many times by many important and much more intelligent people thanme - what we see is that the consumer experience is becoming the shapingexperience for the next generation. Basically this way is where you learn howto decide, what decisions mean and what you are doing and not doing. Oneof the important and dominant modes of consumerism is that if you don’t likesomething you can simply shift and buy something else. When you have forexample a shampoo that you don’t like, you are not trying to reform it yousimply go for another brand. I am using this famous division between exit andvoice which Hirschman developed, because we have more and more citizensthat act the way they are acting on the consumer market. They don’t havepatience anymore to change things - they simply go for something new. Justto give you an idea from the political process of my own country, in Bulgariain the last ten years, twice a new political party formed outside of the parliamenthave been getting majority [in elections]. Basically more than 60% of thepeople have been changing their vote during a single election. People don’thave time anymore to change parties, to press and reform the party for whichthey use to vote. They just ask for the new thing. Think about how difficult it is tolive and be governed in a society where there is no patience for change.There is nocommon visionof the futureBusiness asusualI do believe all of this has something to do with the civil society and what isgoing to happen in the future. And there is something more to think about thefuture - in 20 years there is not going to the American funding for CEE NGOs.Igor Janke: Vida, you talked to the leaders of the 6 roundtables discussions,please tell us what they found out.Vida Ogorelec-Wagner: Thank you. My task was actually to prepare asummary of the roundtables from yesterday afternoon which was an interestingtask really. Two footnotes, one is that my presentation is very personal and creative,it is by no means objective and scientific. In some way it builds on whatIvan was saying, in the past the future was very simple. For the future It used tobe communism, and then it was democracy and then the EU and NATO integration- so from that point of view we were all aligned and travelling in kindof the same direction. Civil Society and NGOs were included in this. Today thefuture looks very different, there are different visions of the future, there is nocommon vision of where we want to be or a common vision of where we aregoing to be. There is also a lot of fragmentation within civil society - we are notin the same boat anymore, we don’t share a vision for the future. When facedwith the question what is the future going to look like in 15-20 years time, a verycommon response is a big question mark; this was a common thing betweenall of the groups.When we go beyond that a little bit, the majority of the expectation is that the115

What about the future?future is a projection of the present to a large extent. Business as usual is plan A.Techno-optimismThere was also a plan B which is a more optimistic scenario, composed of twobranches. One is the techno optimism which constitutes e-democracy - technologyis going to solve it all, primarily with an IT focus. The other is the socialoptimistic vision of society - in 15-20 years we are going to be a participatory,open society and democracy with aware, involved and empowered individuals.Both of these optimistic alternatives have something in common, and thisis that the role of the NGOs is going to be that of a facilitators and catalysts fordemocracy in society.EU funding,business as asocial actor andNGOs bypassedby direct citizenactionForces of change- nationalism,demography,virtual alternativeto the real worldPlan C – the third scenario - is a pessimistic one. This consists of 3 branches, oneis about the EU funding and how this is going to transform the independenceand operations of the sector as it becomes more and more bureaucratic andpolitically instrumentalized. The second one is that of business entering the fieldof social responsibility, either competing or partnering with civil society, withtheir new enterprise funds. And the third one is that NGOs might actually becomea thing of the past, which I think the previous session form the SIC was agood indication of. There is not going to be any more need for NGOs, they aregoing to be bypassed by the public acting directly because technology allowsthem to. So that is on the pessimistic side.When we talk about the future – it is about the direction in which we are moving,we can talk about visions, we can talk about scenarios. The other thingswe can talk about, is the forces of change that will be shaping the future, andwhether these are trends that we can detect now. I have pulled out from thegroups some possible trends or drivers, some of them a repetition of what weheard already. One cluster is obviously demography and population, one iscommunication and growing self awareness of individuals, the next cluster isnationalism and intolerance - and here again we are talking about 15-20 yearsinto the future. One big chunk that Julian also described is the issue of resources,energy and climate change. Then there are also two growing gaps. One isa gap of parallel experiences, some people experience a very optimistic futureof a more integrated, engaged and elevated society of individuals, while theother part of society - whether on global or local level - is completely marginalizedand excluded. This is one of the gaps that are emerging. The other interestinggap is that between the virtual and the real world, and the relationshipbetween the virtual interaction and reaction and real action, especially with ayoung generation which really live in a parallel world. So this is kind of a summaryof what the groups came up with.I would like to conclude with a question – do we as NGOs and as part of civilIs the future like society understand the future like the weather – something that comes and thethe weather or best we can do is to carry an umbrella with us? Or do we want to understandcan we influence the future in a way that we engage with it, we co-create the future and try toit? influence it, and how can we be best be prepared to do so? One thing I forgotto mention for the discussion, is that talking about the ideas we have - what canwe do to be better prepared? There is something in that image, the currencythat we hold, which came up in quite a few roundtables, and this is trust. It is avery abstract word, but we have to make it real. There were some ideas thatwe have to start looking at our results in a much more serious way, we have tobecome more accountable and transparent about them, more like business116

What about the future?in a sense - but this is something that we desperately need on our way into thefuture.Igor Janke: I would like to ask Anna how we may anticipate future trends?Trends don’tjust appear,what isreason?Anna Giza-Poleszczuk: There is always value in discussion and debating –especially if the debate is quite broad. Let me start with a story. We are talkingabout drivers of change, but quite often - more often than not, we are immediatelythinking about the big things like global warming or ageing of the populationand so on. We are very high on the macro level and all these drivers lookto us like some objective and independent force that are changing our lives.We are small and helpless, things are happening around that we have to dealwith and this challenges us. I am sociologist, and we also love this kind of generalizations,we love to talk about secularization instead of talking about moreand more people losing their faith. We are masters of developing labels thatare very general and very romantic in the majority of cases. I started to read alot of books written at the very famous Cambridge School of Historical Demography- so these are humble guys who study parochial registers for years just todecipher what was the certain birth rate in a certain county in Great Britain.One of the most famous of the Cambridge School, David Levin, starts his bookabout growing of the cities and factories in 19th century England with mockingsociologist saying that when he reads sociologists it looks like urbanization andindustrialization are kind of god’s hand suddenly stroking people and forcingthem to leave their beautiful villages and to come to the cities and everyonewas so unhappy because this objective destroyed their beautiful lives. Thenhe says: look guys, the situation is totally different because these are masses ofindependent individual people who over time decided to quit their communityand look for better lives and look for luck in growing cities. It is not that urbanizationjust happened and forced citizens to leave their community, these werehumble peasants looking for better lives, quitting their families and decidedto go work in a factory. So the thesis I wanted to put on the table is that in asense drivers for changes is always people and their individual decisions, andthe whole thing is to try to understand and to notice what they are doing in thefirst place, what decisions they are making and why they are making these decisions.I think this is very crucial because it changes the way we look for driversof change, I will come back to this in a second. Just to summarize what Levinsays: what we see in statistics is just the accumulated effect of dispersed independentactions of individuals, families, groups of people and so on. The truequestion is why are they doing this and what are the consequences?Emotions arethe drivers ofchangeThe key thing that I would like to put on the table is that not only people aredrivers of change, but inside people there are drivers of change - emotions andvalues which are more or less eternal. In a sense people always want to havegood lives and not suffer, to have children and for their children to be happy,to be loved and belong - these are eternal dreams of humanity and they arethe true drivers of change. The question or the issue is, in different environmentsand with different tools and means, people have to change their behavior, butagain in order to obtain the same values. This is my first point and the first conclusionwould be that instead of looking into matrixes of data and running correlations,logarithms, regressions and going for all kinds of econometrics, we shouldlisten to people, we should watch people. We should use our imagination andalso our hearts to really see what is going on, what people are doing and why118

What about the future?Experts areno better thanothers to tellthey are doing these things. For example, people always dreamt about immortality,like Faustus. Modern medicine gives them new tools to achieve the samegoals. Of course it creates some challenges for the state budget and so on. Sousing this first point - listen to people, be close to people - most probably if wedid a nice process maybe we could come to much better conclusions than theeconomists and sociologists sitting in their ivory tower?The second point that I would like to make, is logically stemming from the lastpoint. It is that we should not give away thinking about our future to experts. Itis not true that only people with a professor’s degree and very good in runningall kind of statistic packages are able to tell us what will happen. We are ableto tell it ourselves because this is the logical [follow-up] of the first thesis. We aremaking the change, people are making the change - paradoxically in businessthey understood this long time ago. In business but not in the social domain,they have very nice and simple indice, what do you plan to buy? And from thatthey can predict the demand. They do not ask economists what people will bebuying in 20 years, they ask people themselves - which we should also do! Whathappens as well is that people who were excluded from this debate and in asense may feel humiliated - you are stupid, you cannot tell us anything of value,we will tell you what will happen to you. I would say that this is a process thatwe can watch in European history for at least two centuries, first people weredeprived of their competency in producing material things and they were toldyou need a manager, you need this and you need that. They were deprived oftheir competency of bringing up children, because now you can’t do anythingwith your child without having to have three books and a few experts tellingyou how to love your own children. And we were also excluded, I am afraid,from social sciences, from the debate about society and what a good societymeans. Now we are told that we are not able to organize our society, our smallcommunities without help of nongovernmental organizations, or without thehelp of local government. So my second point is that we should really not believethat. We should really try to speak our own voice, not being afraid that weare stupid, because we can be stupid - why not? We can learn from our ownstupidity, we can try at least.CapturedlanguageWhich leads me to the third and last point. Let me tell you again a meaningfulstory, a few of our colleagues went to the very famous event for polish youthwhich is called Woodstock, to which many young people come to listen to music,you all know what Woodstock is. Our colleagues had workshops with theseyoung people in a very unobtrusive way, in our new foundation shipyard wehate classic scientific research and we avoid it as much as possible. So theseworkshops with young people were exactly about the future, and we askedthem: please imagine yourself in 20 years time and tell us what could help youand what could stop you from achieving what you want. The story I wanted totell is about language, it’s about words. These young people were talking verymuch about tolerance, and because the term tolerance is formed or shaped inthe public debate on a very high level, when the word tolerance is used, immediatelythey would think about black and Jewish people and about gays andlesbians. They were talking about tolerance anyways, and then 5 min later aboy was talking about a teacher in his school who hates when boys are not appearingmasculine enough, so our colleague said: so your teacher is intolerant?Then the boy was totally astonished and he said no no no, why are you sayinghe is not intolerant? Our colleague answered yes he is intolerant because he119

What about the future?Listen to peoplevery carefullydoes not respect these boys. The meaning of this story is that the language hasbeen taken away from us. In Poland, if you are not Jewish, black, gay or lesbian,you cannot be the victim of intolerance. Tolerance is very narrowly reservedto certain phenomena, which is a real problem for human rights [activism] becausethese guys did not perceive intolerance in their own experience. [Thesame goes for] lack of democracy, because democracy is about voting andpolitical parties, and again they do not perceive their own school as a spacefor democracy, they are very astonished if somebody tell them that if you don’thave pupils’ self government in a school it is actually a violation of your right.Human rights are about Alicia Tysiac (a very famous story in Poland) or aboutpeople in Chechnya, but it is not about my own stupid teacher screaming atme every single day. I think this is a real issue for the so-called civil society, becausemaybe we stop being meaningful due to the way we put problems onthe table, we should start looking and listening to people very very carefully,because it is amazing what they can tell us. I think this is beautiful metaphor notonly for Poland. One young anarchist in the workshop was trying to describemetaphors describing Poland, and told something that for me is 100% true: Polandis a squat but without common vision. And I think this is something that tellsus more about future than the huge labor force survey made each year.Igor Janke: Thanks120

What about art and civil societyArtists are very often considered to be a narcissistic and very closed community, which hardlyaffects any other groups except itself. On the other hand art seems to contribute more andmore to civil society nowadays. Many artists use their artistic expression to convey a message tocreate change, or connect with citizens around specific values or actions. Can art oppose discriminationand phobias which the civil society has to deal with nowadays? This was the main question thatauthor, academic and activist Tomek Kitlinski asked the speakers of the first warm up discussion at theCivil Society Forum in Bratislava.Anna Daucikova, a leading queer artist from Bratislava, claims that the role of art has genuinelychanged in the last several years. Having evolved from an issue mostly confined to artists’ studios andbeing more and more a global phenomenon, modern art is bringing about social change and makingmany change their minds. However, to make the links between art and culture develop further in thework for active and vibrant CEE civil societies, there need to be more recipients of the art involved andactivated into the very action. In this case, art can become a source of provocative but also inspiringthoughts and a platform for social activism.ResponsibilityA modern civil society seems to need artists-activists who are sensibilized to the social issues and whotake responsibility for the communities they live in.In order not to stay at the very theoretical level, the discussion was accompanied by video clips, musicand art. One of those was a concert of the Czech band Krylovici. The band was created to paytribute to Karel Kryl by passing his message. Kryl was a Czechoslovak artist who became known duringthe “Prague spring” in 1968, when he reflected the situation in Czechoslovakia through his songs andlyrics and highlighted the sense of freedom, human and civil responsibility. Ivan Juras, the manager ofKrylovici, thinks that we still need to be reminded of the values that Karel Kryl is singing about, as we stillhave to deal with very similar problems.Long-lasting changeIs the participation of citizens, mentioned by Anna Daucikova, the only factor of a successful cooperationbetween art and society? Definitely not. Art seems to be very often a short-term event constructedonly on a stage which can hardly make a long-lasting change. How can we change it? Krzysztof Czyzewskiclaims that we need to reconstruct the stage and to activate the culture which is until now mostlyhappening behind an invisible curtain.Czyzewski reminded the audience of the concept of the famous Polish dramaturge Jerzy Grotowskiwho imposed on changing the dimension between the audience and the performers. There is a neednowadays to build a new art of creativity that involves the audience and is looking for new forms of artisticexpression. It’s time for art to become an agora – a meeting place for discussions that can inspireand revitalize society.Except from reconstructing the artist-recipient relation, the character of art that wants to affect civilsociety has to be changed as well. In Czyzewski’s opinion, art is not always a tool to deal with everysocial problem, as some of them demand long-lasting programmes rather than an artistic event whichcan only provoke, but does not come up with solutions.Nevertheless, long-lasting art projects are possible and it gains even more relevance if we devoteenough time to thinking about linking art and culture to civil society work.121Text by Marta Gawinek, Orangelog.eu

122

Two decades of Civil Society in Central and Eastern EuropeLooking back at twenty years of democratic reform, modernizationand Europeanization in the Czech and Slovak Republics, startingfrom 1989, civil society has played a critical role in what was thenCzechoslovakia. It bolstered initial reforms in the joint state, and thentook diverging paths after the split into two independent countries.Two decades of civil society development, similarities and differencesbetween the Czech Republic and Slovakia can be seen, and theNGOs have played specific roles for the broader social and politicalchange in both countries.Martin Butora and Alena Panikova from Slovakia, discussed the role ofcivil society in Slovakia – for which 1998 was a high point of visibility andefficiency, as NGOs got together and encouraged Slovak people toturn out to vote and thus make a difference in their society by markingtheir disagreement with Meciar and his government’s authoritariantendencies. Jiri Pehe and Pavlina Kalousova from Czech Republicwere discussing the role of civil society in their country, which hasfollowed its own path throughout the accession process to the EU andthe work of building a solid foundation of home-grown philanthropyand stable infrastructure for civil society in Czech Republic.As we are entering the third decade of democratic societies acrossthe CEE region, civil society need to continue their efforts to contributeto open and just societies, and with increased strengths, deliberationand collaboration put pressure on the state to deliver, encouragingCzechs and Slovaks to stand up for their democratic rights and bea part in the further development of the reality in their communities,concluded the discussion leader Pavol Demes.123

Civic Engagement and Perceptions in CEE124

125

126

127

128

During spring of 2009 focus groups were organized in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland,Romania and Slovakia. In each country 2 parallel discussions of approximately 3hours where organized, with various types of active and engaged people:Group 1 – practitioners of organized civil society, including representatives of:Think-thanks, service providers, watch-dog organizations, human rights organizations,members’ organization (municipalities associations), consultants’, trainers’and employer’s organization.Group 2 – individual activists and thinkers not formally organized, includingVolunteers, bloggers, individual activists, intellectuals, media representatives anddefenders of specific causesThe topic of discussion was what is civil society - its role, function and future?Discussions were recorded and took place in neutral places outside the CEE Trustoffices.Focus group facilitators:Petia Kabakchieva, BGKrisztina Arato, HUJan Jakub Wygnanski, PLMihaela-Beatrice Lambru, ROMarcel David Zajac, SVK

What definition would you give to civil society and civic activism?Internet activismSpontaneous networkingRestructuring civil societyEnthusiasm(summary made by facilitator)Group 1[While discussing what civil society is] the internet protests were not considered and, furthermore, the protests [inSofia in early 2009] were not commented at all! Some of the attendants gave negative evaluations for the youngas they were said to be living in a virtual world – “they believe things work out as they do on the Internet – you justclick on and it happens – but things are much more complicated in real life”Group 2For these young people who were not sent forward by an organization, but were volunteers and bloggers, their civilactivity is spontaneous and a matter of personal choice. They do not think of money or projects but rather defendtheir own causes or do it [engage] to solve a personal problem. They want to demonstrate their own stand in theblog, or they simply state “I do it because I like it”. Everyone’s leitmotif was “I do it for my own sake, not for somebodyelse’s”, there was no awareness either of a common cause or of articulation of a general priority problem.This is individual, or some of them define it even as rather selfish, activism: everyone has a problem, a cause or desire;and everyone is also looking for people who have a similar problem, cause, desire, or hobby. None of them iswilling to represent somebody else, everyone is (re-) presenting themselves. The “organization” principle is basedon the belief in looking for one’s own kind, those having a similar problem, desire, cause.The Internet is the perfect place for finding people of “one’s own kind”, for recognizing and acknowledging thosehaving a similar problem, hobby, cause, etc. Thus this individual activism grows into web activism, but it also turnsinto creating a network of one’s own kind – networking. The Web both connects and distinguished between differentgroups, but it also provides a sense of something huge.The word “we” does exist, i.e. there is a civil society indication, an awareness that civil society appears in Bulgariathrough them. The belonging to the civil society is not generational – once you are in the Web, age is of no relevance.Civil society is defined as a quest for “involvement” Civil society is refers to the awareness of the fact thatyou are not alone but dependent on other people”; “team work”; “civil society is a matter of upbringing, of culturedevelopment”; “creating an environment that makes you feel normal, something like a sanctuary that grows biggerand bigger”. However, it is exactly because everyone starts off from their own problem, from themselves, thatthe groups are different and have different problems; it is difficult to formulate a common problemBoth GroupsBoth groups hint at the conclusion that currently it is not self-evident what the term “civil society” refers to. Also, itbecomes clear that some restructuring processes are going on, both of the socially significant public space conceptand the civil participation manners. There is some transition from the civil society concept of a “third sector”to some more plastic and dynamic forms of civil activism. The latter can be defined as individual-network civil activismwhich is searching for new institutionalizing forms. The significance of expert civil activity increases, not onlyas institutionalized think-tanks but civilly engaged experts as well. Current evolving processes should be discussedand considered and it is important that both “generations” should listen to each other’s opinions and exchangewisdom for enthusiasm.130

Party politicsLocal levelControl functionProhibition to distribute profitGlobal consciousness(transcripts of discussion)Group 1P 2: As I see, a democracy is vivid and real if party politics is part of the civil society. As Tamás GáspárMiklós said „the most typical civil organization is a political party”. You can see how colorful the US presidentialcampaigning was, the coalitions include trade unions, lobby groups, religious and civil groups. InHungary, these groups incorporated into the political parties and there is no direct feedback between theparty politics and self-organized groups. Although there are different possibilities to participate in the lawmaking or other issues, real results can be achieved if a local group – with sufficient aggression - demandsit. However, as I see different parliamentary groups „simulate” this cooperation and create party relatedorganizations as financial process machines. I think that the „bottom-up” type initiations, which exist in thewestern democracies, do not exist in Hungary. We cannot say that only the party politics is guilty, they arefrom this society. The situation is that this game was approved by those who appeared as NGO leaders inthe early 90s. So, it is true that the political elite is corrupt and estranged but on the other hand those whotend to be members of self-organized groups went back to the depoliticized status that was typical for thegroups in the 80s. They accepted that „we are independent from the politics thus we should avoid to beinvolved into the politics”. We can see the result now.P 5: I have a different point of view. If we talk about civil society as civil organizations, we can say that the civilsector has its own elite. It became very internal, I think.Mod: I think local relations are very important. Are the local government representatives open enough; is therereal dialogue between local societies, communities and the legitimate representatives of the local governments?P 5: It is a bad moment to talk about this because the whole political system is not credible. It is true inlocal level as well what P 2 said: local self-organized groups have not real possibilities to be involved intothe decision-making processes.P 3: I think it is true that civil organizations have control functions but I think their service provider function alsoimportant. In this meaning I do not feel that civil organizations are marginalized because many of them provideimportant services. (for gypsies, for youth, etc.) I think it is a little bit artificial to say that if somebody does not controlthe power it is marginalized.P 2: Yes, this language is what I meant before. I do not care to have the „NGO sector” as part of theeconomy, I think it is manipulation because civil society is vivid and real only if it can control the powerand state. If we talk about how weak this control function is, it can always be said that civil society playsa service provider function and there are organizations which collect donations, run schools, etc. I thinkthese tricks can maintain the de-politization.P 5: In most of the cases these distinctions are not valid because the organizations have different, parallel functions.P 4: It is a very difficult story. The globalization, the information boom, the Internet made the processmore difficult. It was very interesting to listen to the conversation about the US assistance [of civil society],the training method (participatory learning) for example is a typical Anglo-Saxon one; it came from theBritish workers’ trainings. We completely left our traditions, I am sure that we know more about US civilsociety than the European one. Who knows anything about the British, Norwegian or Danish civil society?While it is very important that when we talk about local issues we cannot compare them to internationalissues, these are tiny local problems, local communities, and it would be important to see how we couldidentify and solve those problems.131

Mod: I think the service provider role is a very important one, and there are many of services that would not beprovided without the activities of the NGOs. The problem is that service provider role is entwined with the politicalrole because for example in the case of a social problem, an NGO cannot criticize the state or local governmentbecause its financing will be uncertain. These organizations are so defenseless that they cannot provide their professionalservices safely. It is because they cannot focus on the sources of the problems in many cases because ifthey do it they would have conflict with the governmental partners. So, I can see the political defenselessness inthis area as well.P 2: You have not understood me. I do not say that Hungarian NGOs can be put into two separate groups asservice providers or public policy oriented ones. I know that very often the organizations fulfill both roles. Butwe have to decide what the topic of our discussion is. We can talk about the nonprofit sector and then thesequestions are relevant, but if we speak about societal self-organization – civil society – and ability of the Hungariancitizens to control the executive power, or even how they can influence different common decision-makingprocesses - these are two separate discussions.Group 2P 3: In my understanding the category „nonprofit” is first of all an organizational-legal category, at thesame time referring to a definite way of organizing finances. The term „volunteer” is first of all a categoryfor the individual – meaning that a person is doing something regularly for his/her community (local,professional, etc.) for free, without expecting payment for these activities. The „civil” category is the mostcomplex of all, it is a social category, referring to a certain way of thinking and acting, it can be an organization,and it can be action, a highly debated and not exactly defined category.P 1: We have to add here that nonprofit organizations can also have for profit activities – they can publish andsell books, can have income from the market for their services, etc. The Hungarian legal system has newly establishedcategories in this respect – social co-operative, nonprofit ltd., etc.P 4: In this respect the most important is the prohibition to distribute profits.P 3: The buoyancy and the energies mentioned, I think were only the characteristics of the elite of the society.Some years ago there was a Hungarian film titled „Moscow square” (A film of Ferenc TÖRÖK, the title refers toone of the main squares of Budapest. It is about the system change in the eyes of a graduating secondary schoolclass) where the grandmother was watching the re-burial ceremony of Imre Nagy, the executed Hungarianprime minister of 1956 on the telly. The majority of this country was watching the system change on the telly andthis had a very serious effect on the activity, the participation of the people, community actions later.P 1: Global consciousness is a characteristic of a very small part of the society and a very small number ofpeople. Most of the people, most of us live in our mini-world, mini-realities. The difference is enormousbetween internationally organized groups and local communities in approach, perception. We lived in the1990s in a way that we did not know anything about the war going on in the country in the neighborhood.We do not see behind the borders of our village.P 4: There are two basic types of civil behavior. One is the type who knows how many beans make five, takes civilactivities as a kind of a business. The other type, I believe the one that makes the majority of us is the type whowants to make the world a tiny bit better day by day. The problem in Hungary is that the butterfly effect does nothappen: [some engaged people and organizations] are shaking their wings but they are not enough to make astorm. We do not have a storm yet but at least we have butterflies.P 4: The answer is simple. There is no one-dimensional person. Life is beautiful because people are interestedin many issues at the same time and they like to do different things. At the same time, this sector isgood because the vegetarian and the cannibal are also present.P 4: Civil society is by nature colorful, pluralist. Politicians would prefer it to be transparent and organized. If a localauthority wants to talk about an issue, they would prefer a „representative of the civil network”. But civil societyorganizations do not want that. They want to stay colorful.132

Empty termSociety of citizensResponsibilityIntermediariesGroup 1P 1: I would say that for majority of people Civil Society would be rather vague and somehow emptyterm. People often think about it while they interact with state (for example when paying taxes) but itis often (particularly in this case) mentally associated with the certain form of oppression. It is rare thatpeople will associate civil society with common /shared set of values, symbols, attitudes. It is not part ofeducation as far as I can see it from contacts with kids and young people I work with.P 2: I have the feeling that civil society is as a term mainly used by foreign donors who want to justify and givemeaning for their work in this region.P 3: Problem with the understanding of civil society in this region is very much caused by the fact thatthere are two very different meanings of it. First, one is more associated with “vertical” relations betweenindividual and the state. Those relations in Poland were historically very fragile and complicated. They areoften affected by the lack of trust and packed with mutual suspicions. However, it is not only the statethat does not trust its own citizens but also citizens being sometimes “disappointed” by the state. Recentlythere are cases when people publicly express their will to resign from polish citizenship, in the way “unsubscribe”themselves from the state. However, there is also another dimension of civil society - more “horizontal”/ community based more person-to-person type of relations. Maybe we should even look for differentwords for that (social economy?) This type of relations is based on social capital but unfortunately,they are also quite weak in Poland (of course beyond family ties). Anyway, in Poland both dimensions areweak. It creates obstacles to emergence of civil society of a more “western” type. Looking for alternativeframework of description I would suggest – public sphere / space. It is more about “co-responsibility” forboth political decisions and shape of community.P 4: For me there are two different approaches to defining / clustering civil society. One is more about citizensbeing organized in form of intermediary institutions (sector) the second is more about citizens as individuals. Forme or for us as an organization, the second dimension is somehow more important. Thus, we would rather usethe term society of citizens - not civil society. We have the feeling that the concept civil society as being predominantlypopulated by organizations is not sufficient any more. Quite often those forms of organized civil society isnot so much representative for citizens but more for self selected groups of individuals who creates them.P 3: It is true that we lack mechanisms of advocacy (voice) – communication between citizens and thestate. Those links are broken.P 2: I did exaggerate with foreign donors but I was somehow provoked by the (all the same) question again.However, seriously what I believe is that civil society is simply a society of individuals who are subjects (not objects)- people who are responsible, who can build and sustain communities (networks of individuals, groupsand institutions). It is extremely important that individuals are not excluded from those networks, and they canbe part of it without intermediaries.P 1: I like very much concept of “society of citizens”. It is important because it goes back to the fundamentalquestion of what is the meaning for me as an individual to be a citizen? It is important to create anddefine a certain “layer” of identity related to being a citizen (like I’m catholic, I’m Polish etc.). Now - thislayer is very thin in Poland.P 1: Stepping back to this very fundamental issue of defining yourself as citizen. Why we lack it? First, we areleaving school without it. We can easily subscribe ourselves to certain modalities: being disabled, being part of aprofessional corporation, being from somewhere etc. Those “identities” are somehow not preformatted by the133

common identity of being a citizen. The discovery of us being citizens comes when we are involved in dealingwith more concrete but narrow actions or concerns. This creates individual paths of becoming citizens, and as aconsequence we have different meaning of citizenship. This is unavoidable. But the question remains, whetherit creates inclusive civil society or just a puzzle of individual and group interest groups? My belief is that they areoften a source of change for the good. It sets examples and creates paths for others to face other challenges. Atthe same time, I do see the problem that this individual trajectory of civic “awakening” will rather restrict citizenshipto only active individuals, often concerned with a specific problem.Group 2P 1: Civil Society consists of self-organized citizens (operating between the state and the market). But it isdefinitely more than institutions of the third sector - it is rather like a “space”.P 2: Civil Society for me has now two important dimensions: the first one is spontaneous communication and thepossibility to create individual meaning. Secondly, the dimension of knowledge generation as a civic phenomenonand open exchange of knowledge.P 3: It is all about responsibility. Civil Society is society populated by people who are acting as responsibleactors. It means being responsible for myself, my family and friends, my community. It is about creatingmeaningful relations and being responsible for their sustainability.P 4: There are two stories / legends of Civil Society. The first one is more about intermediaries (organizations) asgate keepers. The second one is more positive. The first (Rousseau) is more about civil society as generator of inequalities,about power and self- selected pressure groups. In the second perspective, (Tocqueville) intermediarygroups (associations) are the very essence of democracy -> power is distributed/dispersed. The Rousseau versionis very different - the role of the state is to ensure equal access to democracy. Those two traditions are still presentand compete with each other. Particularly recently in Poland PiS government was directly targeting (rhetoricallyand factually) the “intermediaries” (for example professional corporations). Some of this criticism was justified butin its generalized form, it was dangerous.Mod: The recently announced political program of PiS includes type of diagnosis of weakness of CivilSociety in Poland. According to it - only groups well connected to foreign support were able to thrive.Indigenous activities were not supported enough.Non-governmental/non-profitAll of usLinked to level of state powerCivic activism struggelingGroup 1Group 1 defines civil society by putting the accent on nongovernmental and nonprofit characteristics. They considerthe concept of “civil society” is somehow abused right now; we are talking a lot about civil society, but we arenot reflecting enough on the content and meaning of civil society. The participants emphasize the fact that civilsociety is not represented only by NGOs, and this reductionist view on civil society is very common.Civic activism is only a tool of civil society. For some participants civic activism is specific to militants. The civic activismis taking place when a group of people with well established objectives take action in order to fulfill thoseobjectives.Group 2Group 2 defines civil society in a more general way, saying that “civil society is about all of us”. Also they stressedout the frequent mistake to reduce civil society to NGOs. Another idea shared by participants was that “civil society= all community taking non-political action”, the idea of civil society is connected with the premises of “takingaction”. This group stressed the importance of internet development for supporting civil society initiatives a lot.About the NGOs sector the comment was that this sector is now like a “monster” created in a top down approach.134

So, the Internet offers the conditions for the development of a more genuine and bottom up civil society of NGOinitiatives. But they also stressed the fact that the internet can not generate this specific value of civil society. Virtualcontact cannot replace the face to face approach between people, the “real” exchange of ideas. But, it is acomfortable and useful surrogate.Civic activism is very weak in Romania. The idea of civic activism is beyond civil society. For civic activism – youhave an idea and the means to put this idea in practice. Civic activism is related to the idea of taking initiative. Forthe civic activism the motivation is very important. The civic activism can grow if “people pay attention” to generalinterest issues and ideas. (“They get the message, if they are connected to the right frequency”). For civic activismthe important elements / triggers are: personal budget (to be affluent enough), the anthropological data (Romaniansdon’t have strong associative behavior), the presence of a huge bureaucracy opposed to civic initiatives,the quality of messages sent by NGOs (in general civil society structures).Both groups:Across the board there are some common elements defining civil society mentioned by all participants thoughexpressed differently. Examples of civil society structures: NGO’s, interest groups, trade unions, Parents associations,owners associations, journalists, bloggers, commerce chambers, the church (to some extent), coalitions and civiccommittees.Some general ideas about the development of the civil society in Romania: The development of civil society islinked to the level of State power. When the State is weak and fragile, the civil society is more active. Many timesthe NGOs played a “forced role”: they took the place of the political opposition because this opposition was veryweak. When the political landscape becomes more mature the relationship with the State changes.Civic activism – the participants of the focus groups unanimously consider that the civil activism in Romania is veryweak. Some participants from the NGO side consider even that the civil activism now is lower than in 2000.Fulfillment of interestOverlapExpressing opinionPublic welfareRenaissance of citizenshipEnergy flowsGroup 1Civil society is a society of active citizens who actively approach fulfillment of their interests in the society.Civil society is a part of society which complements the public and business sectors even though they overlap to acertain extent. They can overlap on the personal level, i.e. a person working in a state institution can be an activist,and a businessman can actively defend his interests too. However, the mentioned sectors can overlap also in thesphere of their role in the society, in which case we can often describe these relations as competition, for example,there are state schools, private schools as well as schools run by NGOs.Civil society comprises more than just defining one’s position between sectors. For example, in the social sphere,the discussion on what is a private and what is a public interest has been going on for 20 years. The question of whatis a business entity and non-profit entity providing services is also widely discussed. Civil society goes beyond theselimitations. Civil society basically means a chance to express one’s opinion on public matters as well as a suitableenvironment for doing so. People – individuals grab their chance to express their opinion on public matters thusexercising their human and civil rights.Civil society gives everyone a chance to address public matters. In Greek democracy only those were called citizenswho thought of the wellbeing of others. To name those who only took care of themselves and their families,the ancient Greeks used the expression “idiotos”.However, it is also important to add that civil activities have their value.135

In the contemporary consumption based society, civil society sometimes substitutes processes that used to becommon in the past. Many relations within a community were severed as a result of historical development. For example,in the past it was normal to meet and do some craftwork together accompanied by singing and dancing.Unfortunately, today we do things like that only as part of preplanned activities of organizations promoting culture,art, and history. Taking into account the aforementioned, it is necessary to perceive civil society in the context ofhistorical and cultural development of the society of which it is a part.If we stop looking at civil society as something noble and we try to find its exact position, we will face a big problem.Theory says that civil society consists of people who want to fulfill their need to form associations. But where is thatpoint when a friendly get-together becomes an association? Where lays the difference? Basically, people andtheir activities can be the same or very similar. People themselves define the limits when they decide to name andinstitutionalize their gatherings.So what is important in this context are individuals and the way they perceive themselves in society and the formand institution within which they want to do their activity.Group 2Civil society is a group of voluntarily active citizens interested in participating in the administration of public matters.To answer the question what represents civil society or how strong it is, we have to look at our short history. Activecitizens are small islands of positive “deviation” which, at the time of change, have the ability to grow and absorband activate other active citizens. The power of civil society is linked to the position of these islands in the society.If the environment is favorable, their position is strong. For example, good-quality democratic society is a favorableenvironment for civil society because it provides conditions for civic activities and for participation in public mattersas a result of which few “small islands of positive deviation” turn into a large significant active civil society. Onthe contrary, if the conditions for active involvement of citizens deteriorate, it signals decreasing of the quality ofdemocracy and justice in society.In ideal civil society there are so many active citizens dealing with various issues that they eventually cover all ofthem. The size and quality of civil society in Slovakia is determined by the number of issues active citizens deal withand to a certain extent also by conditions these people have for their initiative.Civil society is a group of people working for public welfare. The area they work in is not important in this case,crucial here is the fact that they do it for others not only for themselves. What makes these active people part ofcivil society are the values they represent. The fact that they define their values means that they are not influencedor driven by desire to make profit (business sector) or desire to gain power (political sector). Civil society can thusrepresent non-partisanship and altruism.Civil society means people who are dissatisfied with the status quo and who become active in order to change it.Renaissance of citizenship comes also at times (and maybe it is what we are experiencing right now in Slovakia)when people realize that if they want to change their society they cannot rely on politicians or the almighty marketonly.Definition of civil society is very relative. Civil society can be reviewed from various angles. Society is an individualand his/her social part. Therefore, the basic terms used for defining the society are linked with defining the values ofan individual in the society such as ethics, for example. Active citizens are those who themselves want to contributeto the wellbeing of the community and they can be driven by various reasons. It depends on their values. Naturally,it is necessary to see clearly how the others perceive these individuals, i.e. how the others identify themselves withthe values these active citizens represent.136

Both GroupsSummary – civil society is:• NGOs as institutions of active citizens.• People who work in these organizations as employees, volunteers, and supporters and who contribute to fulfillmentof the goals of civil society.• Part of public that gladly joins the activists or is active on the individual level. People who follow the situation inthe society and the activities of civic organizations and who often bring up new topics and come up with solutionsto their own problems or to problems already dealt with by NGOs.• People who are not active themselves but can be motivated to act.Finally, we have of group of, as I call them, “anti-activists”. These are often top representatives of other sectors whoperceive active citizens as their competitors and treat them accordingly -politicians are convinced that only theyare entitled to manage public matters because they underwent the difficult election process, similarly top managersare convinced that their position is untouchable due to all the money they had invested from their own sources.Let’s also look at civil society from the viewpoint of energy flows. Individual as a living creature cannot spend his/her life in the state of permanent vigilance as it is very demanding from the viewpoint of energy consumption.Therefore individuals spend most of their lives in the state of relaxation (in wilderness we see predators sharing thesame space with their prey which pays no attention to the predator until the predator’s behavior changes). Activecitizen reacts similarly. Civil society starts to act when it feels endangered and under pressure. Slovak civil societycan be characterized by “the worse, the better” saying. The stronger the pressure from other sectors, the faster theprocess of citizen activation. However, no one in Slovakia would lie under a tank as the activists in China did. Doesthis mean that civil society in China is stronger than civil society in Slovakia? Can we judge civil society only basedon the greatness of acts done under pressure? As a matter of fact it is important to maintain the ability to stay activeespecially at times bringing no such pressure upon citizens. If we talk about successes of civil society in Slovakia,we talk about activities of civil groups in years 1989 and 1998. We all know our society lived under enormouspressure at that time. However, we also have to add that the pressure we talk about does not necessarily haveto be negative. Even more frequently citizens become active due to positive pressure such as solidarity, pressuretriggered by the need to help someone in danger. Identification with an excellent idea or good concept can alsohelp activate people.137

The strengths of civil society – what has been achieved?Effective environmentalistsGroup 2Participants unanimously gave an example of effective civil activities – those of environmentalists. Why is that? Because,as respondents claim, environmentalists operate through several regimes – usually it is professional expertswho would formulate the problem (in that case biologists, zoologists, etc); volunteers consolidate around themas they realize the significance of the problem and start collaborating in different ways. Then other professionals,lawyers this time, decide how the problem could be solved and begin using all legally admissible means – petitionswith particular propositions, searching for contacts with MPs and representatives of the European Parliament; streetpressure comes last.Green movement1 % lawSmall invisible social changesGroup 1P 4: I think the rights the civil world required became reality. For example the green groups participatedin the creation of the Environmental Protection Law. It does not mean that politicians after the politicalchange would have been proactive and care for the civil society but if the citizens wanted to achievesomething, they could do it.Group 2P 2: The left-right political distinction does not make sense [for the green movement]. Petra Kelly, German greenactivist said: we are not on the left, not on the right, we are ahead. If you start the game from the other side,it can be done. We have our initiative, the ban on genetically manipulated corn. We could reach a five-partyconsensus. So in this direction, the case might be easier – as a civil society organization you can easily reach apolitical consensus than the other way round. If an initiative comes from a political party, the cleavage is alreadythere, consensus is difficult, whatever the cause is.P 4: The legal background is good. We have a law from 1997 that allows that taxpayers give 1% of theirtaxes to civil society organizations, the famous 1% law. It has become a Hungaricum, an „export good”;a lot of countries introduced it, or similar versions. We have the „public benefit” category which is alsoimportant when we talk about the economic aspects of organizations. We have the National Civil Programthat coordinates the state subsidies, this is badly needed since American donors have mostly withdrawnfrom the region. The share of state financing, basically the money of the taxpayers in this country, hasgrown and is now around 40%. Normally this development is welcome, however in our country unfortunately,those who distribute these subsidies (taxpayers’ money) e.g. local authorities, government, etc.think that by giving subsidies they buy unlimited control over the organizations. Now, that is tragic. Whenwe talk about Structural Funds money, we run into a system where civil society organization are muchmore thoroughly controlled (monitored, to put it elegantly) than a private business or a state agency. Thatis appalling.Mod: OK, OK, but as a citizen I do not really care about the technical details of legal circumstances. Where arethe big and visible successes?138

P 3: There are big successes. I think the biggest ones are invisible. Those are in the local communities wherethere is social help, where there are employment initiatives and two more people found a job in the villageas a result. And this is especially important because the success was reached contrary to bad financialand bureaucratic circumstances. On the other hand, the other most important mission of civil societyorganizations is the zengo-type of activities, now that is problematic, or better put - unsatisfactory. Thereis unfortunately very little watchdog type of activities, e.g. when a civil society organization starts legalaction against the state because they deny making a state subsidy contract public.P 1: Success is mostly small things, not very media-likable. In Budapest, the number of homeless people has notdecreased, but thanks to civil society organizations, few of them froze. The situation could have been a lot worse,but this is hard to recognize.P 2: Yes, we always want big, spectacular things. Smaller cases are not in the news but they are important.Mod: You did mention that there is a definite quantitative development in terms of number of organizations. Atthe same time your marks are weak, showing that there are serious problems with the quality of organizations.Can you tell me why? And what is the direction of the developments?P 2: I am a green activist; in our movement we do have strong co-operation among us, we are organized,we have our yearly meeting with the participation of all the member organizations. We have our representativeson every forum we could join and we give feedback to the others. So we have cooperation andeffective interest representation.P 4: Now that is an issue there – I wonder why the greens are so exceptional in this country. Because we cannotmention another area where civil society is active that is so organized and effective like the greens. Everywhereelse we compete instead of cooperation, everybody wants to be the boss and tell the others what to do.P 2: Maybe we feel the dangers. We know that the life on Earth is unsustainable. And I have to add herethat it was not always so. In the old times, in the times when there were few organizations and a lot ofactivists, there was a lot of enthusiasm. Then this enthusiasm weakened when more organizations wereestablished, when things became formalized. In the 2000s co-operation again improved a lot.Intellectual understandingStable growthJourneyCivic spacesTime matterGroup 1P 5: In my opinion over the last 20 years, I would say there is progress mainly on the meta-level. Intellectually wehave more understanding of civil society: books, articles, research. Unfortunately, it is not so obvious in terms ofmentality and everyday behaviors, where we are not performing so well. Massive “one-day” activities might even“shadow” or obscure the lack of more day to day activities. However, in every form of judgment, there is alwaysthe question of “reference line”, in my opinion in the region we are performing pretty well, although it may be along way to go if we compare with more developed democracies. There are elements which can be treated asa success, and the most direct example is the huge amount of energy which was generated by disabled peopleand their families: thousands of places are run by self-organized citizens.P 1: The first period [of civil society] was very chaotic, building “something out of nothing” and there washeroism but also a lot of fraud, self-dealing etc. I think this has changed, people are more aware of whatis right and wrong in public life. Nowadays people are much better equipped in terms of skills to protecttheir rights, e.g. they know how to use media in a reasonable way. It is getting normal and we can harvestthe slow but stable growth of democratic institutions.139

P 6: I have two perspectives, one is that civil society is not a “state of the matters” it is rather a process or journey.The second is that in Poland people are “becoming citizens” on a kind of occasional basis, it is not given that it isan everyday experience, but it is often a moment of “being a citizen”. My observation is also that sometimes it iseasier to provoke us to do something small like sending an SMS for causes which are somehow distance fromus e.g. hunger in Africa, than to do something concrete like reacting in cases of aggression against the childrennext door.P 4: I have a more general observation. We can complain about some aspects of third sector activitiesbut within the sector there are at least some structures able to counterbalance the state in some instances.There is much worse if we think about individual citizens possibility for influence, there I don’t see so muchdifference.P 2: I believe that “times matter”. It is true that we are weak still but I see more and more examples and attemptsto incrementally build better communication.Group 2P 1: There are some “natural” spots for activism, for example parents’ councils in schools. Potentially theseshould be strong entities but in practice they are often too weak , and to be honest the source of the problemsis not only hostile official school structures, but also apathy of the parents.P 3: There are many places like this. Voluntary Fire Brigades, Schools, Parishes - they are all potentially “civicspaces”.P 6: It is true, recently I participated in research related to civic dimension of parishes and it occurred thatin fact these are places of activism although very often we do not see it on our radars. Obviously, there areother questions about the civic nature of those activities such as level of control and leadership by clergy,but parishes are still more like spaces or generic platform of activities, even possibly more open. For manypeople the parish is still an object easier to understand than the vague third sector organizations, it is muchmore incorporated into our collective mental map. For the more general issue of informal spontaneousactivism, some people/researches suggest that real activism is located there and there is no need to lamentabout civil society.P 4: It is a good point, in a sense Putnam himself has recently questioned his own Bowling Alone hypothesis.Civic activity is not vanishing it is rather transforming into different forms: like massive protests, internet activismetc.EU accessionLegal cases2 %Non-formal associabilityThere are several examples of achievements and important events created by civil society: the focus group participantsmentioned: Communism Trial (Procesul comunismului), enactment of FOIA legislation, Piata Universitatiievents (at the beginning of 90s), abolition of the article 200 on gay and lesbians from the Penal Code, the “lessons”of the Alianta Civica and Alternativa pentru Romania (both civic movements registered latter as political parties),GO 26/2000, the law 2%, EU accession.Concerning Romanians associative behavior, some participants (mainly NGO representatives) expressed their concernthat communal behavior is strongly influenced by the available funding. One participant mentioned that weassist the growing trend of non-formal associability, especially related to internet. Through internet people startedto communicate and to generate common projects we assist the development of virtual communities and moreand more people donate money for NGOs through internet. They have another option to express their charity orinterest outside the “classical” donations to the Church.140

Another participant expressed the view that the associative spirit is growing, even if the NGO sector is somehowin crisis. We assist to the development of alternative ways to express the associative spirit. It was also mentionedthat in a corrupt society the associative spirit is good, because in this way the society generate pressure for moredebate. The citizens “don’t buy” already made solutions so easy. There are also cultural and regional differencesin Romania and the experience acquired by Romanians working in western countries is very important. They comehome already educated about the importance of building associations in order to act together for a commoninterest or cause.The participants from the second group (mainly media) provided additional comments related to associative behavior.One participant mentioned the fact that the Romanians are nation are inclined to associative behavior,but not in a structured way. For a structured approach we have to face some obstacles as: cultural obstacles, lackof civic education, lack of civic space, bad television, 45% of the population in rural areas. Another participantstressed the importance of the recent change of the electoral system – to uninominal vote. He considers that thecivil society structures (NGOs mainly) should play a role in educating the citizens on how to interact with their politicalrepresentative.Different perspectivesTransition of ‘89Proposals for changeDiversityGroup 1Before we start it is necessary to say that people directly involved in the activities of CS and people from the outsideenvironment perceive the successes of CS differently. For people directly involved in the activities of CS the greatestsuccess is the fulfillment of their goals - satisfied clients of social service institutions, a disabled person who hasfound a job thanks to our intervention, an agreement, e.g. between social partners, concluded based on a manageddialogue, a book, an amended section of an act, citizens abiding by good regulations.Looking at the past 20 years of Slovak CS from the outside, the most visible success was the opposition to theemerging authoritarian political representation of Vladimír Meciar. Similarly, the political changes that took placein Czechoslovakia in 1989 can be considered a great success by both the Slovaks and Czechs. However, to behonest, we have to add that the movement in Slovakia never reached the strength and dimension of the movementin Bohemia.We can say that active citizens in Slovakia know, if necessary, the right way to persuade others, perhaps less activecitizens, to adopt their viewpoint. It seems that in decisive moments activists were able to motivate successfullylarge numbers of people. Figures are not that important, though. The intensity of activities is important, the intensityof manifestation, and changes that took place in 1989 and 1998 in Slovakia.Another positive thing was that NGOs have produced many proposals for changing the system. These proposalsranged from really big ones such as the health care system and public administration reforms to perhaps lessknown and less conceptual but equally important changes of the legislation. This could have occurred as a resultof the abnormal situation in the society at the time, when NGOs provided space for professionals, intellectuals, andinnovators who were pushed out from public administration due to their political views. This does not happen instabile democracies. Besides providing a kind of a background for experts, NGOs today represent also a space fortheir discussions and confrontations with laics. Another positive feature is the ability of CS to generate feedback toadministrators of public matters.Diversity of CS has its positive effects too. Diversity means that CS is able to react to and bring up a variety of topicsand initiatives.141

Group 2Civil sector in Slovakia achieved its greatest successes at the times of great pressure on citizens. Before 1989 activistsknew their deeds would put them in danger (even though it was not necessary to lay under a tank, the activistswere ready to do so). On the other hand the role of activists (e.g. environment protection activists) in the politicalturmoil of November 1989 is undisputable and generally acknowledged, just like the role of civil activists in thechanges that took place in 1989. The events of 1989 and 1998 brought about significant changes in our societyand it is an important fact that Slovak civil society was an active part of these changes.Activism in small communities can be viewed from a similar perspective. Again, it is mainly the pressure of the environmentthat stirs action (I consider the intention to replace a park by a new multi-functional building right in frontof my window a direct pressure upon myself). It is very positive that in the past two years we have recorded visibledemonstrations of civil activism also on the lowest level. For example, in the past 5 years, Ružinov district in Bratislavahas witnessed the foundation of more than 16 new civil initiatives which have started to communicate and supporteach other and which have the potential to achieve the right systematic solutions in their district in the future.Highly positive is also the fact that civil activists have accomplished a great deal in certain cases. It does not necessarilymean that their initiatives were successes. From the viewpoint of civil activists “a great deal” means thatthey succeeded in persuading a substantial number of other inhabitants to support them, they took the steps thatour legislation enable them to take, they defended the value and public interest with dignity and regardless ofthe positive or negative outcome they were able to describe the process and offer its positive aspects to activistsdealing with other issues.Further positive aspects concern the civil sector itself, e.g. introduction of the 2 % assignation mechanism whichhave had a positive financial impact on NGOs (but which is paradoxically often criticized by NGOs themselves).At the same time, this mechanism enables individuals and corporations to play an active role in deciding how tospend at least a small amount of their tax and present their positive proposals for development of the society.In recent years, another highly positive aspect is the emergence of eCommunities and their inclusion into the “informationmainstream” by printed media. Printed dailies give bloggers space for presenting minority, authenticallycivil opinions.Diversity of opinions is a great strength of Slovak civil sector. Naturally, this aspect can be both positive and negativesince diversity means also great disunity. How far should we go in attempts to unite ourselves? This questionhas been publicly discussed for a long time. In Slovak context the answer to the question comes again from thepressure of other sectors of society to which, fortunately, CS has always responded so far (e.g. CS succeeded instopping the Association Act which would institutionally throw civic society back to the period before 1989). Facingthe threat, representatives of CS managed to overcome their differences and presented their arguments together.142

The weaknesses – which important problems have not been addressed orresolved by civil society?PrivatizationEuropean fund dependencyNew activismPoor consultative mechanismsGroup 1Most of the participants, engaged in analyzing societal processes as a whole, used the perspectives civil societywithin the thorough social context. Their pessimism was based on the following impressions: “currently total privatizationof the social interest can be observed. Social interest refers to the opportunity given to people to participatein decision making processes and privatization, on the other hand, it is a fact that a group of people has appropriatedthe right to make significant social decisions taking into consideration only their own interest. Some participantseven believe that those people [in power] are businessmen rather than politicians.”Alongside this process, the privatization of civil structures is also developing through European structural funds financing.The financing issue is of key significance since currently these social structures are thoroughly dependenton EU funds. As EU funds pass though the state authority, both state and local authorities establish “their own” NGOsserving their own interests, and those new NGOs are financed at the expense of old and authentic NGOs whichhave lost their influence.Most participants have some experience with the authority and have confronted it a number of times, and theyhave lost the illusion that civil society could count as a factor. Even participants starting their statements “the goodnews is that…” would eventually come to the conclusion that at present it is even harder to work than before.Group 2It is exactly because “new activism” includes groups of people with different problems, that it is rather particularand communicative, that means it would barely lead to large-scale activities or protests. Indeed it is of key significanceto institutionalize some internet channels for propositions for and control of government decisions – theWeb is not only the new public space where different groups are constituted, but it is also perceived as a mainmechanism for civic participation.“I fight for, not against”, “I fight against heroism, but for normal participation”; the other important issue is the formationof civil culture and education, the debate should be educational and people should be aware of their rights.As far as prioritizing of socially significant problems is concerned, it was hard to define such common problems.However, there was definitely some bitterness due to the lack of civil participation mechanisms in the decisionmaking processes or control over those decisions: “nobody requires our opinion”. It is exactly due to the voluntarychoice of standing up for oneself, either through a common problem or activity, which shifts the focus from projectsor financing and makes it spontaneous and voluntary activity. However this may lead to problem with formulatinga joint thesis – the Web is many-voiced, it is about communicating and sharing, it is not just some space for rationalformulation of theses and strategies. As a main problem, all the focus group participants perceive the “problemclarification”, the formulation of clear-cut theses and demands to create a critical mass behind an action.143

Administrative burdensDependence on state fundingLack of civil courageIdiotGroup 1:P 2: If someone establishes an association, they have to work with decrees, specimen of signatures, banks,Tax Office for 6 months. I would not like to establish an organization… So, where have we arrived at after20 years? At a bureaucratic space where we cannot put our ideas and intentions into practice, if we havethem at all…P 3: I think the politicians played important role because they created the regulations for self-organization. It isproblematic for NGOs to participate in the decision – making processesP 5: Very often beneficiaries [of state funding] and supported organizations are dependent on their supporters.Mod: They are expected to be loyal. It is a weakness of our democracy.P 5: If we approach the question in the way that I provide a service, theoretically it mustn’t happen. Butin reality it is difficult to expect it because there is a „double speaking” always. It is a real danger that wewill be moved from the cultural house where we work and cannot provide our services if we continue ouradvocacy function. But on other hand, these functions are mixed in our organization and I cannot expectfrom the local government not to mix it and let us provide services and also initiate local referendums forexampleP 4: This shows how young our civil sector is. In other parts of the world where the civil sector is much stronger,the solution is easy: the organization splits. But in Hungary, the old friendships, human relations keep it together.An organization which provides services to the community has to feel that its income, livelihood, functionalitydo not depend on the community but the local government, then what are we talking about? Somehow civilorganizations take their hands in different stories but it is not a strategic approach at all.Mod: I think the dark side of it is that a political body creates a blackmailing situation without any consequence.P 2: It would be a blackmailing situation if it were expressed. In this way, it is only an uncomfortable situation. Thedirect communication would be to say that OK if you finish the Tubes issue, we sign a contract with you. But thiskind of direct communication in the reality does not happen.P 3: I think in healthy societies it cannot happen. The local government or the state should say that youprovide services; I give you the necessary sources for it. Anyway, I do not like that you raised your voicebut there is not any relation between them. It is obvious that the situation is different in Hungary.Group 2P 3: I believe political debates are natural and may be beneficial for the entire society. We do have to acceptother opinions and have to learn to accept others’ opinions. On the other hand, I accept that the current atmosphereand state of party politics in Hungary can be rather bad for civil society organizations, the media concentrateon cases where party politicians use civil society organizations for illegal party financing tricks. This might berather bad for the entire civil sector since small successes are never mentioned, only scandals.P 1: I do miss civil courage. Neither organizations, nor individuals want to reflect on each other.144

P 2: IDIOT – in ancient Greece this is how people were called who did not want to participate in politics or thecommon issues within the community. Civil society organizations per definition participate in politics since theydeal with community issues, however today party politics is not about this. We have to get back politics, so thatit is again about community issues.P 3: I have some data. They are from a book edited by Mária Kopp, about the state of Hungarian individualsand society. About 10 % of Hungarian society is a member of any organization, this is very lowand shows a passive society with low participation. The other figure which I was actually surprised by isthat there is a correlation between participation (membership in organizations) and life expectancy. If welive an active life, participate in our communities (local, professional, or any kind) we live longer. Peopleprobably don’t know this enough, but life is more enjoyable if our relationships are wide and we care forour communities.P 1: Volunteerism during the system change was preposterous and exceptional. Today it is an accepted, everydayactivity, although figures show that it is still very low in our country. Today we have a problem that thenumber of places where volunteers are welcome isn’t enough. On the other hand, volunteerism in local communitiesis still very weak, in most places. We do not co-operate enough, either on the individual level, or onorganizational level.Normative dimensionCivic energyOrganizational capacityProfessionalizationTime deficitGroup 1P 2: Having in mind first the institutional/sectoral perspective we are performing quite well, NGOs areoperating rather well in an administrative way. The biggest problem I guess is with normative dimension.We are far from being the “good” civil society - inclusive, open, accepting others, committed to commongood etc. We have certain capacity to be collectively “good” civil society, but it is often for short periods.It is not just us, we can take the example of Ukrainians e.g. in 2004, they were also very much “good” civilsociety at this particular moment.P 1: Speaking of Ukraine I would say there is also a problem of mutual learning within this region, we are notcooperating enough. Poland often perceives itself as a kind of “stronghold” in the region, but in reality, this is farfrom obvious.P 5: There are arenas, particularly formal politics, which are not driven by civic energy and this deficit hitsus back. This last period [of civil society development] is just obsession about how to access and consumeEU funds, and at the same time kind of reflection about what is going to happen “after”, how to buildreal stability and sustainability after EU funds.P 4: Bureaucratic culture is not changing so much, there are plenty of “words” but not so much action.P 3: [Defining citizenship identity based on individual action and problems] has also some bad consequences.Various interest groups very often do not communicate with each other, sometimes they are even hostileand competitive. This phenomenon is somehow related to bigger debate about post modernity, thereare more and more group identities built on ad hoc incidental shared experience: like being a mother withsmall children, having a child which is supposed to participate in preschool education or even being a fanof a specific type of music, etc. The problematic thing is lack of communication among those “identities”and lack of overall bigger framework of shared identity. There is also problem with lack of communicationwith the administration, example of this is the fake mechanisms of so-called public consultations.P 3 + 2: There is an issue of lack of continuum between private and public people do not define their problemand abuses (like aggression within family) as public issues. The concept that I have the right to live without aggressionat home is rare. Comparing with other places in the region I would say that the level of public awarenessis much higher, however far from being satisfactory.145

P 3 + 1: What is missing for me is community (gmina) in a deeper sense of the word, missing in Polandis territory based networks of properly connected, institutions, a complete landscape of church, school,shops, coffee shops, park etc. Such a territory is the most natural “micro cosmos” of civil society. A separateissue is that we often ignore business as an important ingredient of civil society, this is a big mistake.They have the capacity to change things and do something concrete. They produce things, pay taxes, giveemployment, transform local landscape etc and still we treat them with a kind of moral supremacy andthis is a mistake. In Poland, business people were never perceived as the elite (of course they might thinkof themselves differently), the term elite was reserved for intelligentsia, it is an anachronism.Group 2P 5: I believe civil society in Poland is representing itself by individual and often small episodes or actions. Unfortunately,there is not enough of them to verify the existence of “good” Civil Society, just moments created byabnegates and rather exceptions than norms. Much more common is the lack of “community spirit” and lack ofrespect for common or collective good. This is the bottom line and very visible indicator of the overall conditionof Civil Society.P 1: What I see as problematic for many organizations is a problem of organizational capacity. It is muchtoo often driven by a single individual not being able to - or not willing to - build an “institution” butinstead is constructing his / her “extended ego”. Often there are problems of succession of leadership, andorganizations are not able to live on “beyond” its founders. Another problem is that sometimes even wellorganized initiatives are not so “civil”. Soft version of this might be church organizations, often they do agood job but they are not so democratic and self-driven. Of course there are some extreme and even dangerousexamples of authoritarian anti-democratic organizations and movements, and this is the “dark side”of civil society. But there are also positive examples of spontaneous activities organized by individuals.P 3: There is a problem of too professionalized civic organizations. Unfortunately, it is not always paired withquality, but often just about heaving a job. The third sector is populated by people who are well trained in differentfund raising techniques, they are able to write proposals and they know how to survive. On the other handthere are not enough people who are altruistic in a deeper sense, who will act just because they like it and notbecause it is expected and awarded by donors.P 4: Another hypothesis is related to Hirschman’s “shifting involvements” of the public and private arena,I think it might be simpler in Poland. The ethos of the intelligentsia has evaporated, and there is still notenough time to build a new ethos of public involvement. There are some forms of public activism, butthey are in a sense marginal and appealing to passionate individuals. There is still no “middle class” civilsociety, the middle class constitutes itself slowly and in the first instance is more preoccupied with its materialstatus and attributes. This group is still not getting itself organized to demand and defend its rights.Another characteristic is the lack of civic life in the new wealthy suburbia, people who live there are busycontemplating their eventual move to “something of their own”. Maybe the next generation which willgrow up in those places will take it for granted and be able to act differently. Warsaw has a huge numberof gated wealthy condominiums – the largest in Europe, and there are good reasons to believe that thoseplaces are not “islands” of collective life. They have separated themselves in a golden cage protected fromthe outside world, but they are also separated as individual families. Who knows, maybe it is all due to being“too close” in the previous era, living in communal densely populated houses with no privacy, maybethere is a need for people’s own territory?P 6: All data shows that recently people don’t need formal organization to get together. There are many toolsfor on-line communication and on-line organizing, for example MySociety and its set of tools, particularly serviceslike Groups Near You.P 2 + 7: There are limits however, to this “shift” into internet, not everything can be transferred there.There are also some specific features of Polish “translation” of internet based ideas, for example the Polishversion of Pledge Bank is not so much about collective efforts for public good, it is more about protestingor just doing stupid things. In fact, being on the internet is often another form of escape which is quite146

contrary to participation.Mod + P 4: It is true that all indicators of everyday civic activities are going down but there are also some “moments”of collective activity which represent a certain “need of belonging”. This need is often pushed aside ineveryday life and reveals itself only in special moments and we have a problem with expressing these kinds ofneeds, it is not only a Polish problem but it exits also in other CEE countries. Maybe we are not “self confident”enough not courageous enough, we still believe that we constantly have to justify who we are? We need verystrong moments to go beyond the threshold of showing our emotions publicly, and to do so we need to seeothers being able to do the same and show their soft sides. Even in these moments however, people very oftenare not together but rather next to each other.P 1: We are not educationally equipped with basic social skills of doing things together and communicatingwith each other. Therefore we are not competent in civic virtues, we need specific settings to start conversationin a real (not virtual) sense.P 4: In the reality of social life, there is a need for conversational situations and need for reciprocity. Nowadayswe are somehow lacking this. An example is talking about kids and helping each other with starting a car, it isdisappearing.P 2 + 5: Being a sport fan can also potentially play this role, but in the Polish situation it is often ambiguous.Looking for collective activities one should also not forget groups like Radio Maryja, like it or not - but it isdefinitely a massive phenomenon. Another one is Wikipedia (Poland has 4th biggest number of contributorsin the world).P 8: Maybe we are just in this initial phase of accumulation of capital. What is important is much about what wehave and not who we are, this phase might be unavoidable.P 7: But it is also true that in Poland one have to work much harder to get necessary (or even not necessary)goods. People here work more and thus it might also be simply a problem of time deficit [to engage].Trust level in NGOsLeadership problemsPost EU strategyMedia drivenGroup 1The participants consider that one of the big problems for civil society is the fact that NGOs are alienated from thecitizens “the civil society don’t feel that NGOs are a part of it”. Problematic aspects are: low citizens trust level inNGOs (under 30%); low number of volunteers; not so many good examples of successful collective action.They also mentioned that in the political discourse we make appeal to “Romanians”, not “citizens”. The citizen isnot motivated to participate in politics. They don’t go to vote anymore, they feel that general problems like corruptionare impossible to solve. There are high rates of absenteeism, negative vote and low participation in decisionmaking.Participants listed the following important problems for civil society: Week partnership with public authorities as thevalue of partnership is not internalized or completely understood; the relationship with the business sector, there area lot of expectations for financial support from the business sector but in reality the relationship is still fragile. Anotherproblem is the low level of federalization and coalitions created among NGOs, we have very few examples ofgood successful coalitions. A general accepted idea is that the Internet is a very good support for collective actions,or at least for mobilization, however it is not enough, there needs to be more commitment to acting together.Participants considered the risk of replacing real communication with the internet, and highlighted that face-toface communication is very important: “we lack the human element.” One participant made a comment aboutthe Romanian NGO Forum claiming that the event has become a managers’ forum: “we become not NGOs, but147

small companies. Where is the enthusiasm?”“A leader should be close with the needs”…; “They are many organizations representing a good example, but it ishard to find something exceptional. In general participants agreed that it was difficult for them to indicate specialexamples of leadership and innovation in the civil society area Participants also expressed concerns related to lackof post EU accession strategy.Group 2Problematic aspects mentioned: the lack of confidence in the law, from school where the children are beingtaught that the law is done only for stupid people. Human resources quality is not so good anymore, the younggeneration is not interested to work for NGOs anymore. A problematic aspect in Romania is that there is not any seriouspublication about civil society development, history, etc. Some participants mentioned that “sometimes thereis a bizarre connection between state and civil society”, a sort of “clientelism”. Another participant mentioned theproblematic aspect of accessing structural funds.Not being able to count on successful collective action was also mentioned: “in order to create successful collectiveaction we need good subjects and means to put them into practice. We have to respond to citizens’ expectations”.Many participants expressed concern regarding citizens’ disappointment with politics and with the badperformance of the administration: “the public administration is made to prevent you from doing anything”.Participants discussed a lot about the influence of media in generating “leaders”, they underlined that in Romaniathere are “media driven” leaders these days. The conclusion is however, that today in Romania we don’t havestrong civic personalities but more media generated public personaLoss of credit and ethosUnstable environmentRegional differencesMoral authorityGroup 1What is on one hand considered good or successful can on the other hand be labeled a failure. People involvedin civil society have lost their credit and ethos characteristic of civil society, in the eyes of their partners in othersectors. This is due to their uncompromising interference with big politics. Politicians say these actions of civil organizationshave political not altruistic or civic background. Entrepreneurs similarly described civil sector as a sectoryearning for power. Moreover, the public they address and mobilize shifted their frustration resulting from unfulfilledpromises regarding political changes, on to NGOs.Yet another problem is that despite their effort, NGOs were not able to achieve systematic changes in society thatare crucial for the creation of a stable environment for their functioning. Financial mechanisms such as supportfrom the government and local self-governments which should serve as a basic source of support for civil societywithout the need to intervene from abroad are very limited. Support from corporations based on unstable assignationmechanism is not sufficiently developed either. Individual philanthropy is absent completely. What is evenworse, not only philanthropy but also volunteering stopped developing, if it exists then it is only to mitigate the consequencesof problems.Slovak NGOs miss professionalism, there are only a few people who devote themselves to development of NGOs.For example in social organizations all employees focus on provision of the service itself, nobody pays attention tothe development of the institution. Undeveloped institutions have far less opportunity to communicate with localor foreign NGOs, this may from the outside seem as lack of mutual solidarity. As a result NGOs become easily andfrequently victims of proposals deteriorating the conditions for their functioning (e.g. new draft Social Service Act).Unfortunately, neither civil activists nor civil society participate in solving the problem of huge regional differences[that exist in Slovakia]. While in towns and especially in Bratislava we observe some demonstrations of activism, inrural areas and economically less developed environment the situation is worse.148

Group 2Obviously, from the inside one identifies more strengths and weaknesses than from the outside where only significantones bringing overall change, are visible.Slovak society misses moral authorities, which is a big problem. There is a lack of people from the areas of culture,science, and politics who would be willing to take over the responsibility and express their opinions on problems ofsociety with the ambition to be accepted by public. The Church in Slovakia lacks moral authority too. As a result it isnot perceived as a moral entity by society. Representatives of the Church in Slovakia do not deal with the problemof values, they do not set an example for the society and they do not attempt to impart their moral ethos to thesociety.This is not exclusively a problem of the civil sector, representatives of political parties and businessmen face it too.The most acknowledged businessmen in Slovakia are the spoiled sons of former Communist party leaders. Similarly,leaders of political parties are mainly politicians who are always ready to compromise inside their parties.149

What are the most important public issues/problems to addressby citizens and civil society?Government controlHigh cultureeDemocracyOpen SourceGroup 1Participants believe that there are enough institutional channels for participation in and controlling of the government,the point is that it has to become effective and decisive from the “privatization implementers”. Thereforethey identify the following priorities:• To assist the development and establishment of alternative civil activity subjects, investing in developing localcommunities, stimulating the development and maintenance of networks that could manage, channel andconcentrate civil resources• To stimulate campaigns that would work for removing the administrating of structural funds from state institutionsin order to minimize the political and corruption pressure;• To look for self-funding mechanisms of civil initiatives;• To stimulate and finance watch dogs activities;• To finance government policies monitoring and organize a permanent judicial system control structure.Group 2In order to turn “my” problem into a significant one for more people, besides looking for adherents, professionalexperts need to be found as they would formulate both the problem and the respective requirements preciselyand clearly; then active action should follow. In other words, Web activism needs expert knowledge, it sort of realizesit cannot be spontaneous – experts should play key roles in formulating both a problem and the strategies forits solution. The idea of expertise goes alongside the idea of improving education as a whole, and boosting civilexpertise in particular.Web activism does not exclude institutions, on the contrary, its representatives strive for institutionalizing their participationin the government process – i.e. provide mechanisms that would guarantee that the position of a particulargroup will be taken into consideration when making a particular decision. Here the institutionalizing of the eDemocracymechanisms and the different forms of deliberative democracy is of key importance. When it is evident that“no one is listening”, street demonstrations and pressure may follow.When asked “If you had the money, which problem would you solve?” the answers were: “the Prime Ministershould…” or “this and that minister is supposed to….” Often revolving around education and the financing of “highculture.”Everyone appeared to be a free culture fan; however there was no evidence of considering things through one’sown project interest.• There is absolute necessity for the institutionalization of civic mechanisms for participation and control of thedecision making processes – “I want to have the opportunity to fight for something”.• The new public space for defending one’s interests and for alternative policies is definitely the internet, thereforethe internet space should be perceived as a valid public forum, provided that people identify themselvesas they state their claims• The time is ripe for introducing certain eDemocracy mechanisms: developing mechanisms for gathering civiland expert opinions through the internet, organizing subscription lists through the net and developing legislativeinitiatives that would oblige state and political institutions to take such initiatives into consideration• “Open Source” and Linux should be introduced in the state administration as “civil servants should be trained”to use freely the new informational technologies• Encouraging work with and through international civil networks as they are not merely a conductor of civil cul-150

ture and know-how, but also provide civil initiatives with different legitimacy.• Work for improving the social image of the civil sector, including monitoring of procedures, project financingand results. .Both GroupsDespite the differences, both focus groups are identifying the problem of democratic shortage, of excluding citizensfrom decision making processes or exerting control over them. Defined slightly differently by the different typesof participants: the independent activist group state “nobody listens to us, nobody cares about us” and “there areno established channels for public participation.” The representatives from established organizations on the otherhand, claim that all social resources for authority access have been privatized.Common recommendations of both FGs for activity priority financing:• Development and financing of alternative policies: it is crucially necessary that experts debate and developsome alternatives to the policies currently applied in socially significant areas, as well as that civil priority strategieswere formulated. Although both groups come up with a similar message, the method of achieving this is abit different, the expert knowledge organization perceives it differently: independent activists putting their faithin think-tanks, while the established group focused rather on creation of working expert groups to formulateproblems and propose strategies for solving them with some socially active groups consolidated around them– a form of expert-civil activity.• Emphasis on the bringing-up and cultivation of civic culture, encouraging initiatives that develop skills for publicdefense of social interests, paying attention to social education, develop and propose new procedures, knowhowand normative base.VolunteerismRestarting change processSocial basisCommunity developmentGroup 1P 4: The sector should show much more voluntarism. There are too many paid activists here.P 2: But P 4, the society itself should show more voluntarism not the sector. There is not a sector, there is onlysociety. It is obvious that the legal environment should be changed. It does not make sense to have rules andregulations of the coordination if there are no consequences if somebody violates them. We could experiencein the last years how public consultations disappeared from the Hungarian legal system because of the interestsof different investors, if an important investor wants to build something, the interests of the local people are putinto parentheses.P 5: If we go back to the times of political changes, we can state that one of the achievements was thatthere are a lot of rules and regulations on public participation. The problem is that its juridical practicehas not been formed, we can see a lot of issues when the law is violated. But it is also true that these rulesare not utilized as the people do not take the opportunity to use them. There is no any real intention tocooperate with each other.P 3: I agree that we should change the legal environment. Partly it would make sense to revise the rules but onother hand it is a joke that the State itself does not keep the rules. We also know that Hungarian courts are notfriendly with NGOs. Also, it would be needed to change the financing system, with regards to the National CivilFund serious conflict of interest can be brought up. The biggest challenge is to change attitudes and changethe culture. If I were ironic I would say we should start the whole change again.Group 2Mod: I would like to ask you to tell me what should be important, what we should concentrate in the151

future, what would be your dreams? Money doesn’t matter: in your dreams it would all be available…P 1: We need social basis. There are a lot of civil society organizations that are run by one or two people and fightfor survival, not the survival of the organization but the survival of the issue. People should acknowledge thatthey have to fight for their own community, for the sustainability of their own community. We need real participatorydemocracy. The other issue is that we should restrain bureaucracy, we are suffocating in administration,statistics and reports. We are not surprised anymore that the state does not fulfill its contracted obligations butwe need watchdog organizations that dare to challenge these issues. The third issue is that the civil and businesssector should be linked, the two worlds have to bridged, today they do not understand each other and there ismistrust between them. Communities would be better served if the two could talk to each other.P 3: I would like to make people behave like adults. I have two examples: the first is about the reactionof people when they get into a straightforwardly unfair situation, for example they get a phone bill thatcannot be valid. They can have three strategies: not to fight and pay, try the legal option through somestate agency for consumer protection, usually useless or try to find others who have had the same experience.I prefer the third and I wish there were plenty of these organizations to help each other and fightfor our rights. The other example is about the current crisis situation. We talk a lot about the necessity tocut back state subsidies, especially about the allowance the state gives to families with children, which goesto families irrespective of their financial situation. The new option, currently loudly debated is to give themoney only to families in need, but then you need bureaucracy to collect papers and make the appropriatedecisions. I have not heard an option that would say: trust people! Make them decide whether they needthat money from the community or not. Ask them to refuse it if they think they are not in need.P 2: I would like to reach those people who do not accept that those in power do whatever they want. It wouldbe good if people knew what we achieve, that they had information of the success stories, and not only the bigcases but others as well. I would like to reach that sense of caring for the community - participation in general isfashionable.P 4: I think all of us think in the same direction. I think the key for all of the issues raised is communitydevelopment. Although there are plenty of organizations dealing with this issue, we should have more.Building local communities is the key to build civil society. In a society the least “conscious” strata is thepoor, among those below low-middle class, there is no civil courage, if there is money available, I wouldspend on them.Who is responsible?Activity of parishesPassive schoolsNarcissistic youth valuesRole of mediaGroup 1P 4: There is a big question of who should be responsible for a “better” civil society and what the role of the stateis. An example, yesterday I was visiting the oldest Senior Club in Warsaw which used to be supported by the CityHall. Suddenly they were informed that the support will be cut by half, no explanation just this information. Whoknows, maybe there are some good reasons for this but it is arrogant to leave people without explanation, theseare active people who should not be ignored and treated instrumentally. I’m not sure whether the administrationmight support civil society but at least it should not make active people frustrated. In consequence, thosewho are “heard” by administration are mainly, “vocal” individuals who are, mainly for the sake of their own interest,pushing the administration, sometimes you can even hear people from the administration praising them asexamples of active citizenship. Is there a way to go beyond this?P 5: I cannot answer question about “division of labor” for civil society but I can point those elements orinstitutions, which are crucial for development of civil society. In my opinion, an important issue in Polandis the activity of parishes, they are potentially crucial for nurturing cooperative and community practice,152

ut this is currently a very much unrealized potential. The second element would be the educational system,civic education is almost none-existing in primary and secondary schools and in my opinion, it shouldbe introduced even in preschools, not mentioning at the university or in programs of life-long learning.P 1: I want to support this view, I work with kids and I can see that schools are very passive in terms of work withcivic education, they will not step beyond what is formally required. A separate issue is the university whose educationalpattern is so old fashioned. During the studies, there is no message about myself in society, particularlywith regards to my obligations. There is almost no training in terms of “doing” things, it is just studying. We studyas individuals “in parallel”, we have no chances to interact with real institutions.P 3: I also think educational systems are crucial. With the overall pattern of more and more individualism,institutions have to create the “immune system”. In practice, they work exactly the opposite, the wholesystem is extremely individualistic and based on competition. Unfortunately, the same goes with theChurch, it should be a stronghold for community but it is not. The parish becomes kind of “spiritual servicepoints” for individuals and they are not any more expressions of community. The same with lifelongeducation. This pattern is preserved and practiced by the elites, needs in terms of recognition does not getto regular ordinary people.P 3 + 1 + mod: The question of the Church and civil society this part of Europe (particularly in Poland) shouldbe examined much deeper. Is it just another competitor for our time and energy, or is it more a generic spaceand source of motivation for various activities? One should remember which role it had during communist time,it was much more than place of worship! It created a protected space, an umbrella for social and political activities,is there a way to bring at least some of this back?Group 2P 4: A very important aspect of any activity is “enlightened” self-interest. Eventually, groups like consumers,professional associations etc will grow and it is important to ensure that the state will not treat them asrebels but more, as a natural “counterbalance” to its own power. It is misleading to use rhetoric of “commongood”, it is rather a natural expression of differences of interest within society. It lies in its nature andI believe those activities have its own internal dynamic engine and there is no urgent need to stimulatethem. More complicated and needed are forms of “public altruism”. My students are very much expressingthese needs for collective experience, however in my opinion there is no need for motivating especiallyyoung people but rather creating a space. The educational system is very much about competition ratherthan cooperation, however, they have to find their own way.P 9: It goes even deeper, there is a certain pattern of bringing kids up. It is true that parents are often workingvery hard, trying to organize extra-curricular activities (swimming pool, language lessons etc.) but there is not somuch effort to create opportunities for collective experiences for kids (like it used to be in scouting etc.). Thereis simply not enough time for it And kids lack after school experiences of this type. Actually there is not enoughsituations of collective responsibility for “anything” - colleagues, territory, tree, pets - whatever. Without this it ishard to gain those skills afterwards.P 8: Those activities are important even in preschool age. Those are “golden hours” of encouraging (ordiscouraging) certain patterns of collective behaviors.P 3: At the same time, young people are in fact looking for that kind of collective experience, there is an authenticneed for it. For example, WOSP (the large polish Great Orchestra of Christmas charity) is attracting people verymuch beyond “the usual suspects”, but being involved in a one day activity like fund raising for WOSP is simple.It is apparently much more complicated to “get into” many NGOs, you have to “climb the ladder” often withnot very satisfying or useful tasks (making the coffee - type of jobs). NGOs are often not volunteer friendly, it isa shame.P 2: Part of the problem is that many young people want to be part of already established cool, prestigiousNGOs, why would they not rather do something in the own neighborhood, is it not cool enough?153

P 3: What I see quite often is kind of narcissistic attitude among young people, they believe that they can andhave to be famous, cool, recognized, awarded. Humble, patient, small and not so vocal activities are not sopopular among young people.P 2: What is also inhibiting people from undertaking civic activities is bureaucracy. Bottom-up indigenousinitiatives are immediately quenched by regulations, you have to fight your way “up the hill” for even thesimplest of initiatives, like planting a tree for example. There is an obvious need for deregulation. –Anotheridea regards the creative use of networks, in the US, they are contemplating the idea of something inspiredby the old-fashioned “public work” that was organized during the pre-war big crisis. Having access to anetwork, one can become a teacher or mentor, networks are organic but they still can be cultivated.P 1: It is true, networks represent huge potential and sometimes you need very little resources to trigger lots ofenergy. But this is a very delicate issue, in a sense it is a living organism.P 5: The role of media is extremely important, the message about civil society is inconsistent. There is no“brand” for it like Solidarnosc used to be. People are not familiar with the whole concept of the thirdsector. However, the role of media is also ambivalent, they are very strong and they create their own institutionsand brands, portraying themselves as the core of civil society but often overshadowing activitiesof organizations. Particularly in Poland this 4th power is in fact very strong with all good and bad consequences’.P 4 + mod: Maybe we need to build new relations with media as we all agree that there is a need for civiceducation. It might take a form of dedicated cycle of programs in form of “How to do it?”. It regards those elementarysocial and civic skills, eventually it will happen.P 3: Media people often perceive it as competition, they have their “own” campaigns etc. There is a needfor huge educational effort among media leaders.P 2: We can complain about mainstream media, but we should also be able to harvest possibilities created byother tools, on the internet you can have your own YouTube TV channel within days. I’m also a bit skepticalabout the influence of media, at least in a certain “marketing” role, I see so many posters, appeals, campaignsthat I am lost and “over prompted”. Then there is one more issue, the role of business in supporting civil society.The concept of CSR is still shallow in Poland and reserved for philanthropy, altogether business is often perceivedas something “dirty” and by definition focused only on its own interest. Nobody believes in any form of altruisticbehaviors of businesses.P 6: I remember being in UK with a group of Polish MPs. they were listening to people from the HomeOffice trying to describe the phenomenon of social enterprises. For our MP the most unbelievable thingwas that they operate in UK without any special tax incentives.P 7: Sometimes it might be useful to use even “artificial” incentives, they may sometimes turn into something real.This was the case in Italy with alternative military services for so-called “objectors”.European issuesSocial contractingCrisis will nourish activismCommunity centresGroup 1During the next 10 year, we will assist the growing of the social services sector, NGOs working in this field will grow.In general, all the aspects related to local communities’ development will be important. The participation rate relatedto social issues will also grow.Some participants believed that the number of NGOs active in democracy field will decrease because of lack of154

funding. Other participants considered that the democracy NGOs may continue to grow, however moving on tomore “European” issues.Other opinions: social contracting will grow and the system will modernize. Also the membership structure for NGOswill grow and NGOs will be better at representing citizens’ interests and we will assist the acceleration of developmentof grassroots organizations.All participants appreciated that the present crisis context will have also a positive side, as NGO expertise will becomemore valued. The present crisis could also be seen as an opportunity for NGOs in terms of human resources,as they hope not as many people will migrate from the NGO sector to the business sector.The existence of people with strong leadership skills, clear ideas and ability to motivate others is very important, andthere is a need for more people able to promote and fight for a cause.If they were to invest for the future - participants identified several strategic areas for civil society development.Some participants considered that the most interesting investment should be in improving the image and increasethe trust of citizens in NGOs. This can be done through campaigns to promote successes and unsuccessful projects,or through building up a special television station covering citizens/NGOs issues. Other participants considered thata smart investment could be in grassroots initiatives, e.g. through a special fund created to support those initiatives.Other opinions stressed the importance of investing in education: civic education in schools, but also educationfor business leaders and politicians to learn more about the NGO sector. Training of leadership for NGOs was alsoconsidered strategic and one participant stressed paying a lot of attention to the community level and that investmentin community development programs is strategically important.Group 2Participants believed that they will assist the development of a “user generated state”, where citizens have betteraccess to governance. Also participants from this group made comments related to the present crisis situation,saying that the crisis will force the participation and activism to grow.Other opinions: the structural funds management will influence the relationship between civil society and the state.In Romania there will be a a group of big organizations, more or less looking like corporations, for the rest there willbe assistance for development of small and local organizations. Volunteer activities will grow, and charity behaviorof Romanians will change, marketing will become very important.As strategic investment, participants mentioned civic education for children and youth, investment in developmentof the civic space such as more community centers. A general education program for citizens could alsobe interesting, other participants mentioned investment in educational programs for journalists as well as humanresources assistance for small organizations.Judicial powerInformation flowsEconomic independenceLocal philanthropyGroup 1Inevitably, judicial power has to be reformed and depoliticized in the near future. It will also be necessary to monitorcompliance with the Antidiscrimination Act. Further necessiti4es will be to extend the legislative opportunities forcitizens and NGOs to participate in decision-making processes regarding public matters, and shift democracy inSlovakia towards deliberation.As for civil society it will be very important to maintain its ability to generate ideas and different viewpoints, influencepublic discussions and create public policies. It will be crucial to create an environment suitable for thefunctioning of organizations, and for individuals providing feedback on the running of the country. In the future, thisability should get all the way to the regional and community levels.155

With respect to the social services sphere, the biggest challenge will be to find and create fair environment forprovision of social services by all partners, excluding manifestations of injustice, favoritism or political corruption. Inaddition, it will be necessary to create space for financial support from EU sources, resources from the state, entrepreneursor individuals for projects, ideas, and methodologies representing innovations in the area of social servicesprovisioning.The civil sector will face more challenges including re-establishment of mutual communication and informationflows, bringing together active people from various environments and cultures, as well as have to make an effortto achieve positive perception of civil society by the public and submit common solutions from various regions upto the EU level.Yet another challenge for our society is the creation of a space for economically independent citizens and theirwork or business activities, decreasing the amount of administrative work in dealing with public sector. Also interferenceby the state and public institutions with the lives of individuals in general will have to be decreased.Group 2It is necessary that activists - individuals as well as institutions, are able to bring issues to a successful end on all levels.This means that active citizens have to get legal advice and other help from specialists, architects, city planners,doctors, etc. It will be necessary to support active citizens and help them get their cases to the media in order toenable them address new activists more efficiently and help them inform the public about their successes.Supporting the infrastructure for civil activists from local independent sources is another big challenge. Volunteeringand philanthropy will definitely remain among topics for discussion. Both of them demonstrate civil activism andrepresent an important independent basis of financial resources for civil society.In the future, civil sector will also have to tackle the problem of lack of young leaders. Activists are getting old, theyare exhausted and this results in a crisis of alternative thinking, absence of elites in science, culture, politics, as wellas absence of ability to address issues and get people involved.In the future, civil society will have to make a decision probably preceded by a very difficult discussion, regardingthe existence of infrastructure for active citizens and its institutional backbone. Advantages of the existence of infrastructurestand in contrast to the evil the infrastructure, or rather its bad performance, may bring to civil society.The problem of financing such institutions or structures considerably limits their occurrence.Democratization of the communal sphere in Slovakia, thorough decentralization of public administration and removalof some well functioning civil mechanisms from the central administration to administrations on the local level,represent a great challenge for civil society. At present the budgets and powers of towns, villages and regionalself-governments can be compared with those of the central government. Another important issue is legislationenabling people to participate in administration of public matters, have secured access to information and accessto decision-making via participation in administrative proceedings.Civil society will have to solve the question of effective spreading of information; the existing eSpace provides completelynew forms of communication. On one hand it makes communication faster and more efficient, on the othersuch communication is impersonal and value oriented, and civil society will have to come to terms with this fact.Making the inter-sectoral collaboration more efficient in the future may shift civil society from dealing with the consequencesof problems to preventing them. This will place higher demands especially on the other two sectors andtheir prejudices against civil society. Last but not least, civil society will have to come to terms with globalization ofSlovak society which will be another big challenge.156

What are the changes and trends that affect the future of civil society?Fraud and corruptionEnvironment of freethinkersGroup 1Dominating the discussion was the subject of social resource privatization, including local authorities alleged ofpurchasing votes at elections and establishing and funding own-purpose-serving NGOs, corruption of the juridicalauthority etc. Almost everyone established a return to some pre-modern lifestyles, a “freaky-pre-modern banditculture” and a new feudalization was mentioned.Group 2On the one hand, the participants perceived civil society as newly-emerging through them as individual activists,and on the other hand, their own realization was significant for them and they do not complain about it. Theyappear optimistic about the future as they believe that, after all, society is bound to normalize; furthermore theybelieve they have the opportunity to form an environment of freethinkers.Civic cultureReducing the gap to politicsGroup 1Mod: Who could do something, what are the necessary steps – a “civic culture” is the key word but we shouldbe more specific. Today participating in open forums, signing petitions, participating demonstrations, etc arevery rare. Schools should be one of the main areas of practicing these skills and a place where students learnadvocacy and interest protection.P 4: I agree that education system has a key role to educate the students for the active citizenship.Mod: What can we do to make the interest representation and advocacy real? What can we do if the schoolssocialize children for assimilation and avoiding conflicts? How can we reduce the gap between the politics andthe civil society?P 4: Do you know what an ordinary child hears at home? S/he hears that there was the KISZ (Young Communists)but it was a disaster. What do they hear at school? The director belongs to FIDESZ, the head masterbelongs to the MSZP - so it is a disaster as well. How could a self respecting children’s movement evolve in thisenvironment?Mod: Are there movements that could be models?P 3: I am sure that they exist. I know the youth area and issues very well and this tertiary socialization area (afterthe family and schools), is a good area for it. In the first and second areas, a stick power controls the children.In the tertiary area there are patterns of recreation and no predestine power, the youths can choose plazas,internet, motor gangs, and contemporary groups. Obviously we have a lot of tasks in this area; us who are civicorganizations, state and businesses. I think it is a good area to teach them what advocacy and interest protectionis, because it is very difficult to teach them in the framework of schools because of the predestine power whichdoes not allow this processes. In this way, a „normal” society could be created.157

P 2: There were a lot of local protest movements from 2000, which can see beyond their local interestsand find allies among similar communities or national movements. It is a positive process but comparingto a stable democracy it is not enough, it is an aborted situation. I do not agree that de-politization is thesolution, as I see it - this is the problem instead, there is a culture of „politics is disgusting” in Hungary. Ifwe play a republic, we should be citizens, have self-respect and have an opinion on public issues. It is notneeded to be party members, but it is needed to have minimal civic knowledge and to use those toolsnecessary to be involved in decision-making processes. A culture of cooperation is necessary also, I am sadto see that very often the elite who normally speak for civil society, talks about itself. These organizationsare different than organizations in Western Europe: they have insufficient number of members, they donot have internal democratic rules, and these organizations operate as companies: there is management,there are donors who behave like quasi owners, and they usually just like to prove their existence. This isa big burden on our democracy.Mod: Do you know of any potential ways and steps to change it? Maybe this financial crisis can cause that individualsand local communities will be more important, or is this an illusion?P 4: The crisis will not assist this process. It came from outside, it is a mass of global interactions; so turninginside is a wrong answer. We must have these interactions but our answers should be local ones, based onlocal needs and local demands.Life is risky and unpredictableSocial economyInvestigating our valuesThe changing role of the stateCyber communitiesGroup 1Main issues raised by participants: life is becoming more risky. The current crisis might unfold itself into unpredictabledirections: in some scenarios we will become even more egoistic, self-protecting and preoccupied with survivalstrategies. On the other hand, it might also trigger positive processes of solidarity and mobilization.The Crisis will force us to sort out our fundamental values again, we would probably be more concerned aboutstability and the values of “belonging” and responsibility. Paradoxically things and issues which are often raised bycivil society organizations might become more important than ever, for example: mutuality, reciprocity, trust as aneconomic factor, social economy, different concepts of wellbeing etc.We are lacking habits and practices for a non-instrumental debate about our own values. Third sector people oftenthink that they are somehow immune from difficult questions about their own axiology, it is high time for debatesaround the question know why? rather than know how? There is also the important and growing issue of so-calledinstitutional isomorphism of third sector organizations, since they are more and more contracted by the administrationthey are under constant pressure to standardize and are somehow forced to be more and more opportunisticand bureaucratic. Third sector should protect its unique features.Group 2P 4: First of all there is a need for understanding the changing role of state, as it is still perceived to be responsiblefor delivering all solutions. Obviously, it is anachronism, not only in Poland is this deeply imprinted in us. Probablywhat will change first (in fact it has already started to change) are behaviors, more and more we have to relyon ourselves for education, health etc. However, we are still trapped by our language and it will take a while tochange it, not only the language in society but also the official technocratic rhetoric of state bureaucracy whichis portraying itself as the source of solutions for all problems. Asking citizens to get self-organized is perceived aspresenting itself as “weak”, the only exceptions are catastrophe like situations. Who knows maybe current crisiswill be so deep that it will force a renaissance of the old and forgotten concept of mutuality or reciprocity (forexample on credit markets) rather than belief in state protection. This would be a chance for self-help. Obviously,for these concepts to work they need to be rooted in a culture of mutuality with access to social capital, whichis not very so available.158

P 2: There is definitely a need for the third sector to think beyond structural funds planning periods. It istrue that funds are available now, but what will happen afterwards? NGOs are very dependent and patronizedby the public administration which distributes those funds and the system often awards opportunisticbehaviors. This is dangerous in the long run.P 2: Technology is obviously one of the main drivers of change and my belief is that in Poland the traditionalthird sector is not “catching up” with development. This does not say that individuals are not using it, but withthis “gap”, individual cyber activism is weakening NGOs who are not adapting fast enough. It creates alternativechannels while in many cases it would rather be possible to fuel new energy into existing one.P 1: Obviously, huge development of cyber communities is going on, of course in most cases they are ofa very specific nature: they exist mainly for fun, entertainment and self-interest, but in the end they play avery important social role again both negative and positive. Cyber communities often create very complexsocial forms, they generate specific form of social capital and of course also so-called “dirty” capital. Toooften, however, they are treated just as dangerous alternative to the real world, while sometimes they areinfluencing the very real world and they can help organize real activities of people. By the way there aremore and more NGOs (however not in Poland so far) which use the virtual world to interact with people,recruit and educate. Technology provides powerful tools for free and lowers the cost of operation as wellas democratizes access to information.P 2 + 4: There is also one extremely important issue, the participation of Poland in taking global responsibility.We still have one of the lowest portion of our budget dedicated to developmental goals, and public debate onissues such as EU agricultural subsidies in relation to problem of famine in developing countries is non existing.We perceive ourselves as a “poor” country and subject of much desired and demanded help from others. Weare not paying our debts of solidarity to others.P 2: Another interesting question is about the process of emergence of post materialistic values. How muchtime do we need in Poland to witness the growing of subtle concepts like quality of life which are measurednot only in economic terms, but rater in e.g. quality of food, identity, public space, esthetics, time.P 4: The big question in my opinion is whether collectively we would be better described as a post-communistsociety or a pre-consumerist and purely materialistic society, being the first generation who can freely consumethe outcomes of their efforts.P 6: Sooner or later we will collectively face the question of meaning of life, happiness etc. We need toanswer it in a deeper sense and feel that we need others - community.Democracy deficitSocial communicationRole of internetPublic consultationConclusions Group 1 & 2Civic transformation happened abruptly in Romania at the beginning of 90s. Social, political and technologicalfactors converged to facilitate the development and transformation of Romanian civil society. At the present (after20 years) there is a solid landscape of civil society, populated with all king of associative forms and collective actionsin Romania – NGOs, coalitions and federations, trade unions, informal association, big, national organizationsand small community organizations, media associations, bloggers etc.Still, despite the progresses, there is a democracy deficit in Romania and both civil society structure and governmentshould tackle this issue seriously. The level of citizens’ trust in NGOs is very low (under 30%), the level of citizens’participation in political activities through voting is also very low, in general the citizen is alienated from participatoryactivities, political or apolitical. Strengthening participatory associations may be the key to political as well civilrevitalization.159

The level of civic activism level is also considered very low. Participants of the focus group sessions had real difficultiesto indicate examples of outstanding “civic entrepreneurs” - individuals or organizations. It was considered thatin Romania there often is a sort of “civic reaction” something below civic activism. For civic activism it is necessaryto have solid civic values and civic education, civic activism should be a systematic activity, based on values andconducting our attitudes and behavior in society.Social communication is critical to a healthy civil society, the practice of leading and managing newspapers,TV stations, opinion magazines etc have a substantial impact on civic education, associative behavior and civicmobilization. Without necessarily intending to do so, Romanian media adopted the wrong strategies for portrayingand gathering information about civil society activities, encouraging unrepresentative leadership and ridiculingorganized group activities. Mass media should become more self-conscious about their own civic impact andresponsibilities.A special emphasis was placed on discussing the role of internet in supporting and encouraging civil society developmentand civic attitudes and behavior. Internet is a wonderful opportunity for social communication and asort of support for a civic space, where we can express our ideas, but is only a tool, internet cannot replace theface-to-face communication.Civil society development and civic transformation are linked with governance reform and electoral politics (electoralsystem reform). In Romania there was a lot of progress in the last 20 years in terms of governance reform. Thecivil society structure is involved in decision-making processes, at least formally. Public consultation has become alegal requirement for all governmental structures, however still there are a lot of things to do in order to modify theworking of government and politics. Institutions, movements and associations could have a more prominent role inpublic consultation with the government and Parliament.160

During the summer of 2009 a street poll was conducted in Bulgaria, Czech Republic,Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.Four questions about civic engagement, civil society and democracy weretranslated and asked to random citizens mainly in the capitals of these countries.The films were translated, subtitled and showed during the Civil SocietyForum available on: www.csf.ceetrust.org/article/csf-street-poll/Street Poll reporters:Plamena Foteva and Tzvetelina Stoyanova, BGJana Milojevicova, CZPeter Hoffmann & Zsofia Zsemlye, HUJoanna Kozera, PLInre Studio, RONorber Maur , SVKStudio 12, SI

What comes to mind when you hear civil society?That it is missing in Bulgaria.Security, morals and responsibilities.Maybe how people get together and do something for public benefit?The feeling of responsibility among the people, I think that should be civil societyideals, which have not until now been really reachable in the Czech Republic.Civil society? What comes to my mind is a community of people living in a specific town orcountry.Hard to say what exactly comes to my mind… For me society means all the people livingin a community, society is the nation, all of us. And civil? For me society and civil societyis the same thing.Well, organizations that are neither governmental, nor businesses but those organizations createdby the citizens for a purpose or a public affair.I think that the so called civil society operates well in West and North Europe, but in Hungary we just have the opportunity tocreate a well-operating civil society.In my opinion the main task of the civil society would be to keep under control the stateand governmental institutions. It is an extraordinary important role. A good civil societycould provide activities which the government cannot or do not want to provide. So thestate could be controlled by the civil society and the governmental activities could bemore effective and less corrupt. Even so there are serious problems with the civil societyin Hungary, sometimes it is a parody of itself. Look at the Advisory Board of the HungarianState Television and Radio, for example. In this case, the civil control is a joke. Various interestscan be noticed in this process, which are led by party politics. It is more destructive than useful.I think that in the media, we can hear more and more often the expressions civil society, NGO,but I’m not sure that they work properly in this country, especially due to the mentality of theHungarians.162

What a question! I don’t know what it is for me to be honest. Civil society..? You are asking about thetimes of People’s Republic of Poland, aren’t you? (Reporter) No, I’m asking about what it is for you inpresent times. (Respondent) I really don’t know.I think “civil society” is a society where members, citizens believe in their influence on the reality that surrounds them. Ina short perspective and further in the future. They believe that the world (close and a bit further away) can be changedfor the better. And they try to do it. They are engaged in different activities, they are able to work as a team. I thinkit’s also important because people can feel that they are not only individuals, but members of a bigger group andtogether they can achieve something.To me “civil society” is something that I can have impact on. It means to be active, it meanspeople who create this society are aware of their influence and they want to have an impact onit. They know that they can do something and they do it.What a question! Woman: Let me think, I really don’t know Man: It’s hard to say. Civil society is community mainly.It’s a society which is able to organize itself, do something together. It doesn’t need any ordersfrom authorities, it does not need a scheme. It’s creative, it cooperates, people help each other.These are main features connected with “civil society”.I associate it with the fact that each person, each citizen of the particular country can feel thathis country belongs to him.What is it for me..? I associate it with free people.It’s our society, it’s what it should be: everything that surrounds us. (Reporter) It is moreabout organizations or it’s “me, you and the others”? (Respondent) Both, in a societythere are individuals, but also organizations, fighting for rights and freedoms.I think it’s a conglomerate. I think you are a group, you, the civil society. It represents the interest of the people when wehave elections or when there are troubles during elections or abuses on the part of political organizations. It depends.The civil society is like the environment. We are all part of the civil society, aren’t we? I am a member of civil society,and you are too, and the taxi drivers over there, we all are from the civil society.Civil society? What could it be? A world full of controversies? It’s something that lately becameless active than, say, 15 years ago, as it was in 1996 till 2000. It was more dynamic then.163

Civil society represents for me the whole nation. (Reporter) What you mean by nation?(Respondent) Nation as Slovakia, Slovaks, Czechs, etc.Civil society? People have power to make decisions about everything, about important things.Normal society that is based on certain ideas, connected to the community. Tolerance at all levels:elderly people, young people, and those in middle age. Covering of basic needs. Civil society meansthat we are taking notice of everybody. Something, like more equality. There are differences amongpeople who did not work honestly to earn their money. They were clever.All community and good relations between people. There should be no rivalry betweenone another, people should have compassion for other people.Civil society is everything around us. Everything which we live with, what we deal with. Whether it is public offices inconnection with citizens, or things like that… Somewhere where all citizens have equal rights. You are asking me difficult questions,I do not think about them every day. Civil society… I would define it like that. Civil society is a society with some kindof civil rights. (Reporter) What are these civil rights? (Respondent) Those which are approved by government of this societyfor all citizens.Dispersion, a variety of interests, associations - that would be it.Civil society means all of us - civilians, all of us.All who are not actively involved in public affairs but still bear responsibility towards fellow men.Maybe even the responsibility that something has to be done, that a better quality of life is to bepromoted in society.Organizations, associations... not linked to and financed by the national government.164

Is democracy working in our countries after 20 years?In a way, but I think there is a lot more to be done in that field. (Reporter) What needs to bedone to improve it? (Respondent) Higher transparency on how our taxes are spent, on thework of the administration and government of the country. If things are more transparent,people will have better vision and will be more satisfied.No. (Reporter) What needs to be done to improve it? (Respondent) The morals and the security must be increased andeverybody must take their own responsibility.Well, there is democracy, it is working, but the people who live in Bulgaria hardly see the result.(Reporter) What needs to be done to improve it? (Respondent) Oh, there are many things to bedone; it’s not just one thing. First we must change ourselves and then work for the democracy.It appears that the democracy works mainly on the negative side, because there is very liberateunderstanding about some things, even about human rights, do you have to take theminto consideration or not... (Reporter) What needs to be done to improve it? (Respondent)I think that parents must pay more attention to their children at home, because thisis where all problems come from, in the street, at work, everywhere. There isn’t goodupbringing at home, and that causes many problems, is the child going to throw trash onthe street, to shout, to be polite with people, etcI would say it works, it exists but it does not work well enough yet. Simply it is not yetvery well rooted in the soil of this country.Some democracy is working but there is corruption, disrespect to the law and something more…intolerance.With regards to everybody’s expectations, it has developed badly enough as everybody thought that after 10 yearsprocess everything would be fine, everything would be wonderful, we would have the same standard as in Germany.I would say it became true, we are doing well, but democracy? That is the question. As a nation we are what we are,as people we are what we are and this is how we elected [politicians]. The politicians are only the tip of the icebergof the whole nation.165

The democracy itself works but a little bit uneasily because when someone really would like toexercise one’s right, he or she can meet such difficulties that it makes him/her rather get aroundthe problems. For example, me, I would never take legal action against someone who trespassesupon my rights only because I think of that I would have to attend the court for ages and it is sounreal.Basically, yes. We have democratic institutions which were created in 1989/90. But this construction is not so stable yet. (Reporter)Why? (Respondent) There are serious economic and financial problems at the basic democratic elements. Aslong as the corruption is so widespread and mushroomed in this country, we cannot expect stable democratic institutions.The most serious problem is the finance of the political parties, until we can see corruption in this field in connection withthe various tender procedures, highway and road-building tenders it is easy to say, that it has a negative impact onpeople. So the whole ‘building’ of the Hungarian democracy is under this negative influence. If we have solid economicand financial background the corruption will decrease and we can make a ‘step forward’. This step will have an effecton society and on the people’s attitude and mentality too. But it is a long way, I know.I believe that the democracy itself works well, the rules are given and they are surely establishedbut maybe the institutions don’t function so well because they’re over politicized.If we speak about the last 20 years, I think yes, but compared to other countries not really. Ithink it’s connected with economy development. We are still far behind other countries andthat’s the reason that all institutions are in a weak condition in Poland. New reforms are notgood enough and often they try to change something without results.Firstly, it started working eventually. We tried to make it work, that’s the most important. Secondly, I think democracy dependson a will to participate in it and practice it. And I think in this field we still have got lots to do. I don’t want to say it’s becauseof old socialistic mechanisms that made people not to believe that we can do something, I think it’s because of capitalism thathas been functioning for the last 20 years and it’s still something new – it makes us often think only about our private interestsand we are not interested in what is going on around us. We don’t really want to be engaged because it’s inconvenient andrequires some effort. I think this is the biggest threat for our democracy. But at the same time I think sometimes there are manipulativemechanisms and I’m thinking about media issues. I remember when I protested against war in Iraq when it was veryunpopular opinion and media reported from my very pathetic speech only the part where I said that it costs a lot of money.So this is my experience and also a threat for democracy.I think as for the beginning it’s working very well but there are lots of things to do especiallywith stimulating people’s activity. With encouraging people to do things on theirown, I think this should be the most important.Woman: For me personally democracy looks completely different when I compare it toother countries. Unfortunately we don’t have democracy. Man: We have something similar butstill it’s not what it should be. Woman: We lack integrity of society, different attitude towards lifeand people, young people and elderly people. I could say more but it would be inappropriate.166

Woman: It’s not how we imagined. There is no democracy. Man: Our power is not the real power.Woman: Anyway, I would like young people to have different, more peaceful life because I observemy granddaughters how hard they work. One is working in Polish Airlines and she is nervous aboutbeing sacked, the second has got her own company, she is a landscape architect, they work all thetime. I used to work in a telecommunication company, I worked from 8 am until 3 pm and I didn’thave to worry. They work much more and I see young people have got tough lives.Is democracy functioning well? We have elections. Everyone can vote according to his opinion, for representatives for governmentor self-governing authorities. Everybody can work for his community through those representatives. Of course in realityit’s different sometimes but I think democracy is working and Poland is gaining an experience how to live in democratic atmosphere.It’s getting better all the time.It’s a controversial question. I think, compared to other countries not bad. But I think there are alot of things to improve. I’m thinking about culture of politics but if we talk about law I think thesituation is good.It works as it can. What could be changed? Nothing in particular. We have to wait another20 years in order for people who were born in democracy to grow up and start decidingabout things and maybe then it will be better. As other democracies that have beenfunctioning longer show, they are also not so good. (Reporter) So you think about youngpeople. (Respondent) Yes, but they will get older and become old men and forget howthey were young.(Reporter) We are 20 years after the revolution, we have democracy here. What needs to bedone to improve democracy in Slovakia? (Respondent) Everything. Unfortunately, in my age,I am saying that everything has to improve, since based on my opinion nothing is working wellhere. I am telling you how it is. (Reporter)What you mean by nothing is working well here? (Respondent)Caring for people, whether they are young or elderly, hospitals, everything. The factis that everything should be improved. Improved to make things better, for people, not only for a fewpeople, but for all of us, throughout Slovakia.Possibilities have changed. People have more possibilities than they did 20 years ago. We havefreedom of speech, which didn’t exist before; people can publically express their opinions. Wehave the possibility to travel, to get to know new cultures, more or less we have freedom.(Reporter) If you compare an idealistic model of democracy and actual democracy in Slovakia,what could be changed in Slovakia? (Respondents) Mainly the way of thinking of politics shouldbe changed. And to make Slovakia more open to other countries. Everything which developeduntil now or this openness of Slovakia towards other countries is stagnating or is shutting down.To improve democracy? People should be more equal. There is a big difference between wealthy and poor people.This is a problem. And we also can’t influence or say what we really think or how we want things to be done. This governmentis doing what it thinks is appropriate.Definitely the protection of individuals against tabloid papers and people on social benefits.People who want to live at the expense of others. I mean to increase safety on the streets,in shopping malls where people are pick-pocketed.Mainly our generation has to die out. We are still warped by things from the previous socialistregime. The fact that we can’t bear life in a democratic way. We still think that we have to usebribes. Look at our government, whether red or green, or black, all are equal, it doesn’t matter.167

(Reporter) what do you think should be improved here? (Respondent) I am really worriedabout my husband, who has been unemployed for a year and a half. He is 57, anengineer who he does not have a job. He is now applying for to be an office receptionist.So I think working conditions should be changed. I think everybody has the right to work.Before everybody had a guaranteed job. It was probably better in the past, this is the thing Iam worried about.Better salaries. Yes, certainly. (Reporter) What else should be improved to reach an ideal democracy? (Respondent)Everything. What is here? Nothing. Unemployment, there are no jobs, and even when you have a job, you have nomoney. Nepotism. And what else, I do not know. Everything is wrong here. When you apply for a job and you do notknow anybody, they hire their own people, and ordinary people cannot get a job. You see an advertisement for a job,but it was filled ages ago. It does not work. There is no democracy. People in power have their own understandingof democracy with is suitable for them. They deceive people, I do not trust even one of those people, even one, theyare liars.There are general things we see every day. Corruption, that’s the outrageous behavior of politicianswho do not have any scruples and act mainly in economic affairs, often arrogant. Thereshould be more tolerance between people in interpersonal relationships, there is arrogancebetween people and that is the thing I also do not like. It is shown for example between youngpeople, it is shown on the streets, and I am often on the streets as a driver. Irresponsibility, overtaking,I find these serious problems as well. And then motor bikers on housing developments,revving his gas just because he likes it, he is playing but he wakes up children. It is just a smallthing, but it disrupts people’s lives.Goodness, what a question. What should be improved? Transparency of all public decisions and affairsshould be improved for sure. And that is all. On the basis of transparency, people would have abigger overview and maybe more discussion. And I think that as for the rest, we just pretend that it ispresent. But when there is no transparency… Transparency of government, parties and their actions.Because every government is grabbing and thus the government does not work transparently, it hideseverything and I think that when we come into contact with lies and hypocrisy, we do not know whowe can believe.Yes, I think so.I would say so-so. Influences can be felt.No, absolutely not.The country is run by the few. There is no democracy.No, it works in a very poor and unjust manner.Well, I hardly think this is the case. Compared to the previous regime, we can now speak up but to no avail.I don’t think that democracy has ever really properly worked as a concept. So it hasn’t workedin Slovenia either.Not really. One does have a say at the elections, but that is it.There are more options and political candidates than before. This is different. We have an optionthere, but none apart from that. There is lobbying and patronage, this isn’t right.168

If you have a problem in your community to whom do you turn?Presumably to nobody, except the police maybeWell, there’s nobody to address, we solve our problems by ourselves.To the municipality, you must torture the municipality constantly ring on their phones. Unfortunately,it’s old-fashioned, but it’s the only way that works.We actually have a problem in our neighborhood with some youngsters, there is as far as I know, a curfew to whichthey don’t comply. They shout, make noise and we can’t rest and sleep normally at night. And now we intend to make apetition, because the police don’t respond to our requests to check why these youngsters are outside their homes duringthese late hours. We clean all kind of garbage left by these young people, where are the parents and why are theirchildren in the street by that time of the night?Hm? To my daddy? :-)Perhaps I would turn to the municipal office.Hundred-percent to the municipal council of Prague 14 where I live, and if it would not workthen on Prague city hall, its mother organization.To local or state PoliceUp till now I haven’t had any personal experience in this field but in my opinion, we can turn to the ombudsman and the municipality.169

I think the local Administration, (Reporter) And if it was a problem connected with your district or yourcity? (Respondent) Then District Council or City Council. I think there is no problem with communicationin these institutions.I think it depends on what kind of problem I had. I would try to find the institution whichwould have a chance to help me to solve the problem. I would go to appropriate authorities:regional self-government or some other kind of power, it depends what problem itwas exactly.In my district there is a very active group of residents. For instance, recently we blocked the project ofa building that was supposed to be built opposite us. We also have a few councilors who livein the neighborhood and I would ask them.Woman: We would ask, but who can listen to us? Social Help wouldn’t help much. I would ask a person who, I supportthe PIS party so I would ask Mrs. Kaczynska! She could help in some situations. Man: I support PIS party too.Local self–government. I would find out what they are planning to build, what is the purposeof it. Is it consistent with the needs of the local community because if someone wants to builda factory which is harmful to me, then inhabitants of the particular district or building shouldorganize themselves to take care of their security and health in order to prevent building it soclose to the estate. (Reporter) So, you would turn mainly to self-government? (Respondent)Yes, because they administrate the area.It would depend on the conflict but if it was a conflict connected with the administration thenI would ask self–governing authorities, but if it was an ethical or social conflict I would go to awell-known actor. (Reporter) Someone who is a leader? (Respondent) Yes, I know one NGO inmy district so I think they could be a mediator, but I think many people would go to a priest, somethinglike this.It also depends on the kind of problem. There are lots of different organizations which areresponsible for very different things. So it’s hard to say.Not here but when I lived in Komorów city, I agreed to be a councilor of my district in order to be able to deal withproblems. But then I moved out and lost contact with the community but it was the experience from the early ‘90s, inthe beginning of freedom in Poland.Most of the times? Or a problem in my home? I don’t know, I guess there are institutions forthis. From what I saw: some for children’s rights, women’s rights, all kind of such institutions.(Reporter) Would you go to these institutions or to the private, non-governmental ones? (Respondent)Both, both, it depends on the context, as sometimes the private organizations do nothave too much influence. Well, sometimes neither of the institutions has and they don’t workproperly, so it depends from case to case.170

First thing I do is to call 112 (the emergency number). (Reporter) And what if you want to arrangea park for children, to whom do you turn? (Respondent) Normally one should go to the major,right? Because he’s the one in command.We don’t have enough power to turn to someone, as we don’t have the right. We are people of color, so we don’t havetoo much success anywhere. I came here for an interview, for a job. And I tell you, I am 40, I am no 15-year old kid. Iworked for a boss for five months, and he kept telling me that he’d offer me a work contract, but he didn’t. And thenhe gave me a 15-day notice. What kind of notice if I had no work contract? (Reporter) Do you think it’s because of thecrisis or because you are – in your words – “of color”? (Respondent) Both, crisis and color. (Reporter) But you have minorityrights organizations, haven’t you? (Respondent) I did not get to them because they don’t have real power. Poweris money, you have money - you have power. No money – no power. And everybody looks down on you. (Reporter) But youcould just look for those organizations, knock at their door. Just look for them in the newspapers, on the Internet… (Respondent)Right. I didn’t go to minorities organizations to complain that I don’t have a job. It pains me a lot, so I didn’t. Anyway, nobodycares. You cannot live in Romania. I worked in Germany, as a house keeper, a cleaning lady I was treated with respect, I’dsay, the boss there placed me at his table, but here they treat you differently. Big difference. Earth to sky. (Reporter) So, I canassume that you don’t trust the organizations. (Respondent) No power, no power at all. Everyone for their own pocket. If I geta big shot tomorrow, I don’t look right, I don’t look left, I just look for my interests, this is how Romanians are.Where I live, in the 4th district of Bucharest, it’s possible, there is a kind of center, it appeared recently,one year ago. So you have somewhere to turn and seek help for solving community problems. Problemis that they are not solved quick enough or, well, good enough, as the citizens want them tobe. They are not too receptive. Moreover, it is also a problem with the legislation, not only technicalproblems, let’s say you have somewhere to go for help, there’s somebody you can talk to, but thereare no [proper instruments] to implement the solutions. Anyway, there’s hope,I would deal with the person with whom I had a problem myself. I wouldn’t go to anyone. I havehad a couple of jobs during my life, but I have never been angry with anybody, but maybe theyhave been annoyed with me. Whom would I visit? The Ombudsman or what is he called? I wouldfix everything myself! (Reporter) Would you know whom to go to in case of any problems? (Respondent)Maybe I would go to the local authorities. Truly, I don’t know how I would solve somethinglike that. Maybe I would use my own hands ?I would probably turn to the police. Maybe I would turn to some media agency. For example,TV Markiza has a special program on TV where they help people with legal problems. And ofcourse I would turn to my friends, who would know to advise me.I would turn to the civic court. Until now I haven’t had any significant problem I have neededto fix, but if there was I would turn to the ombudsman or somebody similar.Luckily I haven’t had any problems. But I think that when you want to find help, you will find it. I would use the internetsince I know that such websites exist. And I also have a lot of friends who are working is this area.I do not have any problems. I have not thought about it.For neighborhood problems, I would turn to the administrator of our building, or the estate, or whatever and I wouldresolve it. If not, I would go to the housing association, or another organization, there are maybe more of them, thereare not just housing associations and there are various owners. Or if there is no solution, I would call “Lampáren” andpublicize the whole problem on television, I think it really works as a tool for some activities.171

iI have once turned to the ombudsman, my experience was positive, the counseling was efficient.I have absolutely no trust in the police.Our community, family and friends try to help one another.I generally solve my problems by inquiring in my social network: friends, acquaintances. I askthose who would know the solution or know someone who could help. I turn to formalsources second.To the Social Work Centre, the Employment Service, the health centers. It depends on theproblem. Also the police ultimately.The municipality, the mayor.172

Have you ever volunteered for a civic action?It was a long time ago doing some cleaning, actually improving something in the neighborhoodwhich belongs to the whole community. To create an environment more pleasant for all of us.No. Because nobody is interested in involving me and because nobody works to involve particularly the young peoplein such initiatives.No, because I don’t think that their initiatives are good enough to attract me as a volunteer.Yes. (Reporter) Why? (Respondent) Maybe because of my feeling of responsibility, for cleanspace even, to make something, to plant a tree, I think that kind of things must be done byeveryone.I think yes, I was helping with some cultural projects, for example with the charity projects when sculptors from abroadwere coming here to work for 10 days on a sculpture for free and then the statue was donated to a hospital. In thiscultural field yes.We were cleaning a forest voluntarily, but it was not organized, we were cleaning it for ourpleasure from having a clean forest, that is the only thing that comes to my mind, otherwise I havenot volunteered.I am volunteering in my neighborhood because there is no workforce that would be doing it. Imow the lawn, I embellish the surroundings, I clean sewers [for prevention from floods]It seems like no, when I was a child yes but I would say it was also a bit obligatory at that time asit was under socialism. (Reporter) Would you volunteer now? (Respondent) If there would be aplace where a forest should be planted then yes I would be glad to go, voluntarily.I haven’t volunteered but maybe I will one day in order to help somebody.In my opinion, in Hungary there are only a few well operating NGOs, but I usually participate inthe Critical Mass. Otherwise I ride a bicycle to my workplace and I believe that the Critical Massfits me well.173

Yes. Some years ago I assisted to Habeas Corpus working group. Its activities covered minority protection, womenprotection and family abuse. This group have had theoretical and practical activities too. Nowadays I also follow someNGO’s work, for example the ÓVÁS Group. It tries to protect the historical quarters of the downtown which can bedemolished in the future because of the ‘business action’ of some estate agents.No, until now I haven’t. On one hand, because I haven’t had enough time for that yet, and on the other hand, those organizationsare not apparent enough for the men in the street, so they don’t know about the opportunities and they are not motivatedto do it either.No. (Reporter) Have you ever done anything for you community for free? (Respondent) Yes, I have. Itwas a project “Bring your own story”, a social-artistic project. You put your own memorials on the Internetportal and these memorials you can link with Google Maps. Then some of them are put on specialplates on the buildings which your memorials are connected with. (Reporter) Was it your only adventurewith doing something as a volunteer for the society? (Respondent) No, as far as we talk about artprojects I always work as a volunteer. The idea is to work with artists and support them because it’s stillnot enough done in this field. It would be advisable if this kind of projects were financed by the governmentas a whole.I’m still a volunteer, on a smaller scale maybe than I used to be but I’m still a Scouting Instructor. (Reporter) How manyyears have you done it? (Respondent) 38 years. (Reporter) Is it the only form of voluntary work you do? (Respondent)No. Because I’m not an instructor of junior scouts any more what had been my favorite activity for many years so Idecided to find something similar and started searching for the possibility to work with children. I went to Social HelpOrganization and they proposed me work to help with studying and it appeared that the person I was suppose to helpwas a man over 40-years old So my intention to keep contact with children wasn’t exactly met in reality, but I hopeI will do what I want. I also work for other organizations like PTTK (Polish Tourist-Sightseeing Society) and I’m a member ofAmnesty International, a passive member though, because I don’t have time for everything and PTTK and voluntary tourism ismy passion.Yes, many times. I used to be a scout. It’s a form of voluntary activity. Also I worked inChildren Hospice. The most interesting project I was participating in was organizing “ADay of Recognition of Depression”. We tried to make people aware of symptoms of depressionso they can recognize it among their relatives or themselves. People often don’tknow how to recognize it and those affected can end up committing suicide for example.We made the research among students and we taught them how to do it.Man: We don’t do anything like this. Woman: We lived in different times. We had childrento bring up. We had Communism. Man: I thought you’re asking about present times? ( Reporter)Yes, about present times too. (Respondents) Man: Yes, I was a scout. We had lots to do.Woman: Now, we help poor families. For example we try to give away clothes that our grandchildrendon’t use any more to other people because they are still good. My granddaughtergives me things that are unnecessary any more, trousers, jumpers, and we send them. Mygranddaughters are young and they can buy new things. (Reporter) Have you got contact with theCommunity of War Veterans? (Respondents) Woman: Not any more. Many of them died already.Man: I had contact for many years. Woman: There is an emptiness around us. Man: And those whoare still alive do not keep contact any more. The contact is broken. Woman: It’s not that it’s brokenbecause we even have got relatives in Australia. During Martial law in Poland our son unfortunatelyleft Poland as many young people did, for example from my work.174

No, I haven’t. I’ve never been a volunteer because when voluntary organizations startedto function in Poland I was already an adult and I focused on commercial activities, onthings that gave me professional satisfaction rather than to work without profit. But itdoesn’t mean that it’s closed way for me, in the future I’ll be able to use my knowledgeand experience for this kind of activity. (Reporter) Have you ever done anything for free?(Respondent) Of course, I have. I worked for an NGO called “Etnographic workshops”Yes, I have. In an NGO called “Fundacja Rodzic po Ludzku” (Foundation Human Way of Giving Birth). I try to improve the situationof women who give birth in our country. I was a scout earlier, so I can say scouting too. (Reporter) Why did you become avolunteer? (Respondent) Because I had some free time and I wanted to use it well and the organization was close to the subjectI’m interested in. I think it’s an important problem so I wanted to do something not only for myself but also for other people.Lots of things, for example I made election posters, banners, leaflets. I worked in “Wolnosc i Pokój”(“Freedom and Peace”) organization. It was a movement created in ’86. Mainly it was about opposingjoining the Army in the People’s Republic of Poland times. People were giving away their Army IdentityCards or burnt them so it was a pacific movement but at the same time connected with the fight fordemocracy in Poland. Last few years? Formally I’m a member of Association of Artists of Utilitarian Photography,but more on the paper than in reality, it’s a different story.I did and I am still doing it. Last time I worked as a volunteer with the Botanical Garden, my university organized this. We hadto clean the garden in spring and fall and it seemed like an interesting idea. We have just one such a garden in Bucharest,we should take a bit of care of it. (Reporter) And why did you get involved in volunteering? (Respondent) Because if not us,who else? At the end of the day, these are problems we can solve by ourselves. (Reporter) Do you feel the need to have anorganization to back you up? Or can it be done individually? (Respondent) It is more difficult if you are alone. You don’t havethe logistics, I think you need some legal agreements, you cannot simply gather some friends and say “Let’s clean the BotanicalGarden”. I think they will chase you out. Yes, I believe that in most cases you need an organization.I would volunteer, because I miss the activity and I would get involved to occupy mytime, I am willing to do whatever.No, no. I have my problems, I have a big family, children, my family is my preoccupation. I don’tsee myself getting beyond this, spending all my time in politics or whatever. So no.Yes, to the extent that my time allows it, I would be willing to do it and I think one should findtime for this. Now, it depends on what would be asked from me. I think it is possible, frankly, Icould find time to get involved in an NGO that would reflect my ideas. It has to be somethinginspirational, it depends on the work of the NGOs. (Reporter) Haven’t you found an attractivecause until now? (Respondent) It is not that, I believe there are causes. I didn’t give too muchthought until now, when you asked, but there are causes: children, elderly, social minorities,things I assume I understand and in which more of us should invest time and money. It’s notabout much money. What has been discussed, that percentage of taxes, it’s not much moneyfor each of us but the result is, in my opinion, very concrete.175

Volunteering? I can remember when we had weekend jobs. We collected potatoes, beetrootsand hops. I was a high school student at that time. But apart from that, I didn’t volunteer as suchanywhere else. (Reporter) Why did you do it? (Respondent) In order to skip school. Why not? Allstudents are the same. But we also helped the farm a little, at that time they didn’t have so manypeople working as they do today. (Reporter) Have you done any voluntary work since you’vebecome older? (Respondent) No, I haven’t. I had 3 children, a family, a job and I‘ve been pretty busy.I haven’t done anything like this. Voluntary organizations as we know them today didn’t exist at thattime. And I don’t have enough energy to volunteer. What could I do?.No, not yet. I haven’t had the opportunity.Yes, I did some short-term voluntary work. I worked in a centre for autistic people; we helped them to do up the garden. Ihave also volunteered in a place close to my home, we cleaned and maintained the interior and the exterior of one building.No, I am employed, so I have to work. (Reporter) Why haven’t you volunteered for any organizationor individual? (Respondent) It is probably because I didn’t find the time. I have been infull-time employment since I was 18, I have a family, so I didn’t have time.Yes I do. I am volunteering for humanitarian projects that are situated in e.g. Kenya. I findpeople who would like to sponsor children who live abroad, this is a widespread system of supportthat works in many countries around the world. We find people, who are willing to payfor a child’s education and in some cases also the accommodation for children living in povertyin developing countries.No, I have my own job, I am busy. When I come back from work, I cook, clean and look after mychildren. What should I do?No, no, I have a full-time job, so I have no time left. Not even when I was young. I volunteeredfor the army, but I had to.For a non-profit organization? Yes I have. I volunteered for a non-profit organizationcalled Skala, this organization in Tatranska Lomnica addresses the development of culturallife in the High Tatra Mountains by organising festivals. I was happy I could contribute.The head of Skala is one of my best friends and the rest of the people who work there arealso my friends from childhood.I have attended some union protests, cleaning drives, what else? Also student rallies. Not all, of course, but some yes.There was an anti-fascist rally the other day that I did attend. I have cleaned Ljubljana and removed graffiti. At the beginningsof our state, our whole family went to many rallies. Back then, it was still done out of positive hope. We now goless and less. I think that Slovenia is quite small and that it is shaped by politics, every individual as such cannot changethings. Mass is power, but if actions are organized by small groups without massive support, then they are bound to fail.176

In times when producing texts and images has become so seductivelyeasy, finding sincere, smart and heartfelt examples on a theme so specificand important – how to be an active citizen – is really difficult. Yet, ourfoundation saw this trend as an opportunity to gather voices and imagesthat rarely reach the institutional platforms.In connection with the Civil Society Forum, the CEE Trust announceda competition for young activists, students and journalists. We askedparticipants from Central and Eastern Europe to submit their views of civicengagement and activism in essay, photo story and video format. Thechallenge was to show how civic activism can trigger positive change.On the previous page, a couple of submissions received in the photocategory, below the winning essay and some extracts in written formatfrom other young voices. All winners and further information available on:www.csf.ceetrust.org~~~~BydgoskieA group of students moves into Bydgoskie Przedmiescie, once a Mecca for Polish artists, now degradedand dangerous district of Torun. Inspired by stories of their old neighbor, they establish a Society for BydgoskiePrzedmiescie. Soon they are flooded by letters from citizens and get involved in social campaignssaving the only public library in the area and organizing workshops for children from the orphanage. Thedistrict starts to change, attracting students, university teachers, artists and... developers, who bring newproblems.I met them in Czarny Tulipan, a stylish dive with Klimt pictures on the walls at Sienkiewicz Street. At thattime they were already quite well-known in Torun - Pawel Kolacz, Marta Kolacz, Lukasz Broniszewski. Forthe last couple of months I had been writing about their actions, but we knew each other only by phone.I remember that at first glance they looked surprisingly young. We sat near the window. Sipping beers,they looked like an ordinary bunch of students right after their classes.We all lived in Bydgoskie Przedmiescie, talked about Bydgoskie Przedmiescie, met in Bydgoskie Przedmiescie.Not a very safe place for a night out, but certainly an appealing one.A forgotten wonder, a pearl hidden under the cloth of time, back in the 1920s, Bydgoskie Przedmiesciewas a district of artists. Prussian walls from the 19th century, Art Nouveau mansions, large villas with gardenson Slowacki street became home to painters, sculptors and writers, many of whom came here fromsouthern cities: Cracow, Lvov, Zakopane – capitals of Polish modernism. Kazimiera Zulawska, the goodspirit of Zakopane’s artistic cafés, widowed by famous writer Jerzy, bought an old Prussian mansion hereat Bydgoska 26, opening a pension for actors of a local theatre, and actresses, of course. What a lootfor Zulawska’s old friends from the south! Soon Torun attracted top Polish artists of the period: Witkacy,178

Stanislaw Przybyszewski, Juliusz Osterwa. They all lived in a pension in Bydgoskie Przedmiescie, an areabursting with cultural life, full of cafés, restaurants and cinemas, with its own concert space and an enormous19th-century park.Zulawska lived in Torun until 1926. Later the war broke out, and after that – the communists arrived. Locatingfactories on the outskirts of the city, they turned Bydgoskie Przedmiescie into a workers’ area. This iswhen the process of the district’s degradation began. Bydgoskie Przedmiescie turned into what NowaHuta meant for Cracow. Except that it wasn’t built on the core. The communist engineering affected thevery heart of a historical place, bringing crime, alcoholism, poverty, vandalism. Only several old citizensremained. Among them was Edward Moszynski.An old painter, erudite, and collector of ancient stories, who could debate for hours and hours about thehistory of Polish gentry, the art of the Enlightment, Kant’s philosophy, Russian literature as well as hundredsof other topics, and the neighbor of Marta and Pawel Kolacz.The young pair moved in, when they arrived in Torun for studies. He - a tall, lively chap in glasses, with aclear facial expression and three-day-beard, she - a lovely blonde, working part-time for the Centre ofContemporary Art. I don’t know how exactly they met Moszynski – maybe on their way to the local shopor cleaning the staircase. I know that soon they started having discussions. Surrounded by a circle of students,in a loose atmosphere, Moszynski gave informal lectures about Bydgoskie Przedmiescie – aboutthe history of a mansion just around the corner, about 19th-century architecture and about old familiesthat had already moved out.It was 2007, when Kolacz – an archeology postgraduate – and his friends decided to establish a Societyfor Bydgoskie Przedmiescie (SBP). Inspired by Moszynski, they created a website about the district– and were flooded by dozens of letters from citizens, especially those who moved in later, in the 1990s.Since then, Bydgoskie Przedmiescie has been regaining some of its charm, attracting students, universityteachers and restaurant-keepers due to its location near the Old Town.People asked them to install CCTV, because the area was still dangerous, sent old photos, wanted tofind out more about their houses. A real test for the new organization came in April 2008, when localauthorities decided to shut down the only public library in the area. Readers began protesting and receivedstrong support from SBP: the young wrote letters to the City Council and alerted the local media.Soon officials withdrew the idea of closure.It was a similar story a couple of months later: my newspaper revealed, that the authorities were consideringdemolishing a 100-year-old sports centre instead of renovating it. Our source claimed that therewas at least one developer, who was prepared to buy the land and build a gated apartment complex.After the article was published, Pawel Kolacz convinced the heritage conservator to put the building onthe official list of protected monuments, saving a popular sports centre for the local community. At thesame time, the organization presented its ideas for the future of Bydgoskie Przedmiescie during a publicdebate. The young see it as an “artistic district”, as it used to be, and already agreed with the Centreof Contemporary Art, which is operating in the Old Town, to launch a residential program in the area.Foreign artists will come to live in the district and create installations, sculptures or live acts. In autumn,people from SBP and other NGOs from the city organized a street art festival and photography workshopsfor children from an orphanage on Sienkiewicza St. Every participant had their photo exhibited inthe windows of local shops. Children are now waiting for a new football pitch – the authorities are goingto build it in the western part of the district. As part of the national program called “Orlik”, new sportscomplexes are going to be built all over the country. Initially, it seemed that Bydgoskie Przedmiesciedidn’t have a chance of qualifying for a pitch, due to the lack of space, but SBP carried out a successfulcampaign to plan it on a deserted square near the tramway.Quite a success! Yet, there is a lot to improve. Almost 3,000 out of total of 40,000 citizens living in Byd-179

goskie Przedmiescie are on social security. No jobs, no money. No plans for the future. The area is still oneof the most dangerous in Torun – fights, burglaries, vandalism. A lot of old mansions, owned by privatelandlords, have regained their glamour. However, there are still many that are squalid, neglected, unkempt.Then in Czarny Tulipan, sitting with people from SBP, for the first time I thought to myself, that BydgoskiePrzedmiescie may turn into what Praga became for Warsaw and Kazimierz for Cracow. Once old, dowdydistricts, they are now full of modern cafés, pubs and hotels, bursting with life and new energy. The samehappened to Salford Quays in Manchester and the coastal parts of Barcelona.Of course, the revitalization itself also produces new dangers. A property developer called Marbud isplanning to build about 750 new apartments in a northern part of district, all gated with private shopsand restaurants. It’s a good sign for the area, but rather than push existing citizens out to poorer partsof city, we should try to offer them something new – say the young from SBP. That’s why they are nowstarting a gallery and a cultural space in a deserted Prussian building near the river, they are planning toorganize other workshops for children from the orphanage, they have launched a campaign to changethe administrative borders of the district (which will make more citizens eligible for revitalization fundsfrom the EU). It’s important, that many activities are undertaken not only by the city, local companiesor regional authorities, but also by young citizens, who have become an outlet for the voice of manyothers.Bydgoskie Przedmiescie is changing. Last year Andrzej Lipinski, a well known local restaurateur, openeda stylish Italian café just two blocks from my house. More and more mansions are being renovatedand there are more students, artists and professors interested in living in the area. A private company isplanning to open a hostel here, another businessman came up with the idea of constructing a 4-starhotelnear Marbud’s housing estate. A series of our articles about the district, inspired by SBP’s activityattracted another people – new NGOs are springing up like mushrooms. They establish new websites,organize discussions, call for new bicycle paths or organize workshops. Some of them are opportunist,trying to promote candidates for euro elections. Others are not. It all proves that Bydgoskie Przedmiescieis becoming trendy. After all, Machiavelli wouldn’t bet on a lame horse.________________________________________Maciej Czarneckigraduated from law and cultural anthropology at Nicolaus CopernicusUniversity in Torun, Poland. He is an experienced journalistand traveler, and he is currently writing a book about Bydgoskie Przedmiescie district in Torun. Maciej plans to usethe awarded scholarship to realize a series of interviews with people engaged in revitalization of once degradeddistricts in a few European cities, such as London, Manchester, Paris and Madrid. This would allow him to write abouttheir experience, successes and errors, providing examples and ideas for Polish revitalization projects.180

Mikuláš Pštross - Keychains and PotlucksHere we are now. Rights acquired just by being born into the Homo sapiens sapiens family. Representativeswe can choose and/or criticize. A variety of organizations devoted to improving the quality of life.You name it: the environment, social justice, remembering our neighbor (…). The beliefs we won’t bepersecuted for. Is this all that belongs to the so-called “democratic transition”? Isn’t there somethingmissing? If so, what is it?Just as one and one is two, liberty can never exist without responsibility. « Wait a minute - I did not sign upfor that... whatever it means. » (…) And yet, rules do not completely fulfill the definition of responsibility.We have no choice, but to look at it from a different angle.”Community. A single word so empowered with meaning, especially when its full definition can sometimesbecome so tangible. Or can it? It all depends on one’s point of view. “Yeah, but why should I beactive? I don’t get any money for it?” Or as the grandma of a young volunteer from Ústí nad Labem putit: “Even a chicken doesn’t dig for free...” So why bother? For the fun? For the friends? For the potluckcakes? And maybe even for the greater good? The soldiers of the past, marching in the streets probablydid not look as happy. But something tells me that a group of people can actually dedicate their freetime and money to something that exceeds their immediate needs. And have a good feeling aboutit. A sense of an acquired meaning. In fact, how else can the demos of democracy “rule” other thanin the small everyday tasks. Details sometimes display the most beauty, if you know what I mean, andespecially if they are done with the intentions to help others.It is very important to create and sustain active communities. Citizenship means caring with others forothers. Gone are the grey nimbostratus clouds that prevent the light from shining through. Democracyor maybe a “federation of communities”. The term community can only enlighten our understanding ofdemocracy if we experience what a community means in real life. All the money spent on cheesy billboardswould thus be wasted - a quick glance from a fast going car never lead to a question. But thereare activities in everyday life that surely can.Andreas Sepp - Observations on the Differences between Civic Engagementin Estonia & the U.S.I define civic engagement as something that unites people with similar interests. The result is usually amovement, group, organization, or something similar. The sustainability of such “unit” is dependent ontwo criteria- a) do the people involved in a certain kind of activity really love what they are doing perse; b) whether it is able to give its member’s sense of accomplishment. If the answer to both is “yes”,then most probably something in the society will essentially improve thanks to the activities carried outby such a group. Even if government policies contradict this particular area of civic activism or the statedoes not provide any significant assistance to accomplish this group’s goals”.In Spring 2008 a previously unknown Estonian NGO mobilized 50.000 people (about 4 per cent of thecountry’s population) to come together for a day in order to collect trash from forests, highways, andother such places where it’s being illegally dumped. A year later, the same organization initiated the socalled national brainstorming, where every individual could propose ideas how to improve life in Estonia.Only about 11.000 people showed up, even though the campaign was being widely supported bypublic and private media sources.My fellow countrymen possess a slightly more obedient mindset compared to my American friends,which, I believe, is a result of living more than 50 years in a political system that was based on fulfillingthe orders coming from above. (...) No wonder then, that collecting garbage, a very result-oriented andeasily measurable activity, turned out to be more popular than collecting thoughts, a field where thereare no right or wrong answers.181

Tanya Grishkovskaya - We can be a part of solutionMany people think that the antithesis of love is hate. I think in another way.... I consider that it is indifference!This is ignoring a need which knocks on your door and looks in your window. You can changesomething in this world not only when you have a lot of money, a significant position in society, extensivework experience. You can change something when you really are not indifferent to people, you understandwhat compassion means. When you begin with something small, then your friends join you, thenwhole crowd starts to follow you, and together this is already a big force, which can make a difference!Yes, we are not the sun giving warmth to the whole of humanity. But we can at least do something tobecome initiators of changes in our society.Maria Comandasu – Letter to the youngIn the place where I grew up, people don’t think very much about the world outside their community.They spend their life taking care of their children, praising God for a better day tomorrow and cherishingtheir friends. The nature surrounding them is always seen as a gift from heaven and they don’t needspecial policies to understand that. They are helping each other before knowing the Good Samaritanstory and they never, but never expect something in return for their good will.I am strongly convinced that awareness is a powerful weapon and that if beautiful initiatives will keepdeveloping there will be a powerful Romanian civil society in the near future. It might not be enoughfor a sudden change of an entire country, but it will be just the start to the right path. It is said that if youwait long enough, someone will agree with your point of view. It is why I will never close my eyes and Iwill always keep seeking for those who will want to find solutions.Emile Zola once said « If you ask me what I came to do in this world... I will answer you: ‘I am here to liveout loud. » And this is what all young Romanian people and East-European young people should do. Fortheir countries, for their souls, for all the children from the small villages who believe that sharing, lovingand giving are the natural ways of acting in life. The past is irrelevant. The present is improvable. But thefuture must have the sound of change.Silvena Garelova – Civil society: Do we mean the same?Today it is clear to anybody, that building a real, functioning democracy inevitably goes through buildinga strong civil society. In order to do so we invite to my country “missionaries” from all over developedEurope to help us strengthen our civil society, believing that it cannot be done in a different way – weare the pupils and they are the teachers.But what actually happens, is just a transfer of a western European model, which simply does not fit everywhere,which we are not ready for. Maybe our own path is simply in a different direction. I think wein the East should be more self-confident and realize that we have something valuable, and the West– something else. We do not have to completely forget what we used to be and what we are in orderto adopt a completely new lifestyle that nobody can prove is the better one. The healthy connectionbetween the West and the East does not consist in a one-way knowledge transfer, which is cultural imperialism,but in a balanced exchange from both sides – both should give and take.Roxana Georgiana Radu – Youth activism: Between the culture of revolutionand the culture of reactionIt is commonly said that youth governs itself by its own rules. And it is frequently acknowledged thatdemocratic choices imply a degree of consciousness and responsibility without which equal opportunitiesand equal rights would not wield the same value. Being actively engaged in political processes,however, does not come to contradict any of these features. On the contrary, making “new rules”,specific to one generation, could be influential in adapting policymaking to expectations in a timelymanner. Besides, it strengthens the ability of young people to create the environment they wish for. With182

the enhancement of technologically–mediated channels of communication, ideas do not need to berestricted to traditional frontiers; they become enriched by the flux of information on their different applicationin diverse contexts.Three solutions would enhance participation in democratic processes and awareness: one of them involvesthe introduction of civil service reform, the second concerns the mentorship framework for projectsand the third is connected to spreading information through social advertising.Firstly, the completion of a program of civic service that would be compulsory for all people aged between15 and 18 would ensure an equal level of understanding and commitment to democratic valuesby active involvement. This would complement the civic education received during secondary schooland would put an emphasis on the practical aspect of learning.Secondly, the mentorship program would become a framework for developing informed groups readyto offer a model of democratic citizenship. Mentors chosen on a voluntary and merit basis from activeyouth leaders could become role models for people willing to contribute to societal development in amanner that allows for personal characteristics to be brought to the forefront.Thirdly, forms of social communication, media campaigns and advertising aimed at social ends havebeen implemented extensively, especially by the younger generation, in several European countries.Romania, however, has only witnessed the creation of several advocacy campaigns, coordinated byprivate actors or by governmental agencies. But social advertising as a result of youth work could successfullyperform the function of public opinion education in pursuing general welfare.”Liis Hinsberg – Civil society today and tomorrowCivic engagement is a two-way street. The government or some other organization has to provide citizenswith the opportunities to participate and the citizens have to take part and give feedback in return.It cannot be done without having some dialogue between them both. Taking example from theseevents, later the citizens with experience can be the initiators for the next events.“183

Social Innovation CampCentral and Eastern EuropeThe recipe:• Take 60 young people from 18 countries stretchingfrom Estonia to Georgia.• Ask for ideas about social projects they wouldlike to develop• Team them up by combine their programming,marketing and business skills with enthusiasm and socialentrepreneurship.• Give them 48 hours, a lot of coffee, sandwiches and allowthem to stay late at night- you have got the Social Innovation Camp!!After a couple of days of hard work, plenty of discussion, tryingdifferent solutions, growing friendships and exploration ofsocial networks - plus a lot of tweeting back and forth it istime for the teams presentation skills to be tried. The variousproject team head to the stage as they go in for judging by ajury as well as a popular vote on the best webtool.

Changing society withtechnology or changingsociety with pen and paper –it is all about the people!Reflections on the Social Innovation Camp CEE and the link to the CivilSociety Forum - the voice of a participant.With the task at hand being to reflect and discuss technology and civil societyin 2010 - four start-off assumptions to chew on:• The Information Technology Revolution influenced all our lives and is presentin most sectors and spheres of people’s day to day experience. The everpresentpersonal computer and its sidekick the mobile phone dominate ourlives from dawn till dusk...• Technology like any tool can be very useful to work for open societies, socialchange, world peace, equality, animal rights, personal gain, climatechange, awareness etc. etc.• At the end of the day outputs still depend on creative people, energizingmeetings, an effective exchange of ideas, crisp information flow and theharmonious joint-collaborative effort.• Technology and its access to the internet have introduced the potentialfor anyone anywhere to start an effective project or movement, given thatthey wield the aforementioned human capacity.It’s time to stop treating modern technology as anything but a tool that regulatesand shapes the professional output of society. In short - it’s not which versionof software you have or if you are blogging about activism on your fluorescentpurple iPhone or writing on a napkin in a Bucharest café: it’s still what youwrite and who you write it to. Simple answers amiss – and in spinning off of theSocial Innovation Camp, - let’s develop the thought that “how” is rather aboutthe people than about the software.Finding the link between upstairs and downstairsWhat separated the youth of the Social Innovation Camp that were housedupstairs at the Civil Society Forum venue, from the rest of the conference onthe first floor? What can we learn aboutconnection and network maintenance ina non technological sense?Well, a couple of observations can bemade in addition to the fact that the medianage was slightly lower upstairs First of all,that many young energetic people whoare-not-really-engaged-in-organized-civil-societyseem to care about their societiesand have an enormous through thenight energy and motivation for the work,186

willing to invest a at least a day and a half and the headache of administeringa travel for a good cause. Playing a part in its popularity may be the doingrather than talking.Second, the force that propelled these skilled geeks from their well-wired basementsto thrust their skills into the buzz of organic society was fundamentally civil,social, and down to earth. And also - relevant to these people’s own day-todayexperience: help finding a doctor, searching for psychological care, helpwith childcare in stressful times and voluntary help for older people, watchdogaction against drivers risking other people’s lives or neo-Nazis writing hatefuland criminal offences on walls of our cities.As a matter of fact, participating in both discussionsrevealed the intentions and social consciousness ofthe two groups to be strikingly similar. The young activistsupstairs, echoed the same type of concerns theirexperienced colleagues downstairs experience whenframing new projects:• “I am not an expert but....”• “How would a professional NGO approach this?”and• “We can’t get stuck in the long deliberation ofthis question this [social] problem won’t go away.”Third, the SIC CEE teams all mentioned during the finalpresentations that the way forward for their ideas pastthat initial brainstorming and late-night-programmingstage was to work with an NGO to get the backing andair under the wings to carry their idea forward. Despitesuccesses in their own worlds, much could be gainedby both groups through joint efforts. Free activism oftenneeds civil society organizations; organizations needmasses of supporters, ideas, energy, time, skills (IT,marketing, outreach and others) etc.Many of the NGOs in the audience also seemed inspired by what they heard.The big question is: was it just a good-will show of little consequence? Howmany participants found it worthwhile to network with the other lot or contactedeach other afterwards, curious to see if there was any mutual benefit – thisI know not.If You Can connect on Twitter You Can Connect without ItIn the good old days behind the iron curtain there was very little informationflow in the public space. Relics of the past, more than a handful of local andregional government officials in Central Europe will always begin a meeting“speaking as an expert.”The era when this was the only argument needed is passing. The young onesof this region, and of the world, are no longer recognizing the singular authorityof “expertise.”And we all know that for whatever we are told we can alwaysfind another opinion on their problems; its up to us to search for solutions, andgradually acquire the needed expertise.187

I, for one have met dozens of top class IT developers who would jump at anopportunity donate their time to activists and NGOs. Open Source movementswho practically exist in every country in this region with thousands of activemembers working for free to develop technology and more than often expresstheir great desire to contribute it to social causes.So it is about connection and linking up with people - benefit from their drive,skills and energy. Dealing with people is our business, albeit a messy businessthat cannot be organized into logical boxes and frameworks. Addressingquickly and with a broad arsenal of knowledge the evolution of multiple issuesrather than reinforcing sticking to the beliefs - and statements - that we alreadyhave all the answers is key.Reaching out to the individuals, activists and enthusiasts in the online communities,is about inviting, recognizing the value of what they can offer but alsoabout being interested in their experiences. A PC with internet access can bedecisive in the right hands – and how about adding that human dimension byany of the following ideas:1. Make sure to invite your IT staff to your next team meeting if you are notalready doing so – and listen to their ideas and solutions.2. Don’t have IT staff? Invite the most tech-knowledgeable member of yourteam and make her/him talk.3. Don’t have staff? Go online and try the hard way to find fora to discuss itinviting the community to help you. Or go and loiter at the barcamp/socialinnovation camp type event in your region.4. And let’s not forget the will on the other side - I would encourage the e-activiststo come forward and test some of their local NGOs, seeing what theyare up to without judging them beforehand - offering their ideas, perspectivesand practical help may actually lead to the opening of doors.In the end it is all about people - asking them to inform our work and thus actuallyserving our constituencies. If they like it and get involved, they will probablydiscuss it on Facebook!188

What ails civil society?What ails civil society?Agnieszka Graff claims that through stubbornly labelingthemselves as anti-political, neutral and workingfor the “public good”, civil society organizations havemarginalized their own voice and impact in creatingreal alternatives to the ruling politics.189

What ails civil society?Introductory remarks“We wanted a vibrant civil society, and all we got were NGOs.” I have heardthis quote several times, sometimes attributed to an anonymous social activistin Hungary, and other times to someone in the Czech Republic. Yet whoeversaid it first, it captures an important feeling haunting the region, which I woulddescribe as disillusionment mixed with nostalgia and bitterness. For some thirteenyears (since returning from my studies abroad), I have been part of a circleof people in Poland who could be defined as ‘social activists’, ‘engaged intelligentsia’or ‘the new left’ – feminists, human rights activists and academics withan interest in social justice and political change, many of us linked to the formerdemocratic opposition. We often reflect on the topic set here by the Civil SocietyForum, and most would agree that something has gone wrong.There seems to be a great distance between the time of wild hope and engagementin 1989 and the years that followed, and the present atmosphere ofdistrust, cynical me-ism, the low level of social activism, and the plague of ‘burnout’among activists. In my view, the sense of defeat and discouragement isconnected with the way in which civil society was conceived and idealized inthe late 1980s and early 1990s (i.e. as separate from the realm of politics), theway it congealed into institutions and was professionalized by the late 1990s (aprocess sometimes referred to as NGO-ization), and the way these institutionsare now positioned in relationship to each other, the society, and the state.Other forces and processes are also at play. For example, as I am sure manyothers in this debate will conclude, there is something very wrong with our educationalsystem. By continuing to provide students with facts to memorize ratherthan ideas to debate, or instilling the desire to debate them, it has failed toprepare people for ‘citizenship’ in the modern sense – citizenship as participation.Another important factor in the specific context of Poland is the centralrole of the CatholicChurch as the primaryThe key problem is thesite of social and cul- tural cohesiveness, arelation of civil societybearer of political powtomarket forces, ander with a monopoly onthe nation’s values. De- the dominance of the pending on the worldview, the church can neoliberal framework in be seen as a guardianof true values, or as a the region’s transition to censor blocking accessto values other than its democracy. own. In either case, weare dealing with a mo-nopoly directly at oddswith democratic pluralism. Ironically enough, as human rights advocate ProfessorWiktor Osiatynski once noted, the most vibrant center of ‘civil society’ intoday’s Poland, capable of engaging the commitment of millions, is the nationalistCatholic broadcaster Radio Maryja. Such topics as education or therole of the Church are worth discussing, but I believe that the key problem is therelation of civil society to market forces, and the dominance of the neoliberalframework in the region’s transition to democracy. It is to this that I devote thebulk of my response.I have also consciously omitted the most obvious argumentation, namely that itis all a matter of the legacy of communism and the way it deprived people ofagency and trust in public institutions; the way it made us turn away from anyinvolvement in public affairs. Of course, all this is true. But twenty years havepassed, a new generation born after 1989 is coming of age, and we must moveon.190

What ails civil society?False assumptions: the trouble with ‘anti-politics’I will not be the first to suggest that much of the ‘sickness’ afflicting civil society inEastern and Central Europe is due to its conception from the very beginning asa sort of non-political engagement, a mission that is not about power struggle,ideological difference, or group interests, but about serving the common good.The sources of this ethos, as we know, have their roots in the culture of politicaldissidence that arose in the 1970s and 1980s (Karta 77, KOR, Solidarnosc, etc.).The concept of ‘anti-politics’ then survived 1989There is no such thingas a commonly agreeddefinition of the ‘commongood’. In effect, ‘antipolitics’has a politics of itsown, in that it legitimizesthe status quo.largely unexamined and was idealized – bothby activists and by institutions such as the UNand the EU – as the proper site of the transitionto democracy. I would argue, though, that ina democracy there is no such thing as politicalneutrality. There is no such thing as a commonlyagreed definition of the ‘common good’. In effect,‘anti-politics’ has a politics of its own, inthat it legitimizes the status quo. As an ideological construct, the glorificationof ‘anti-politics’ has served to constrain rather than encourage effective andautonomous organization, blocked debate about alternative paths of development,and, finally, contributed to the rise of right-wing populism.In her recent book Citizenship in an Enlarging Europe, Barbara Einhorn describeswhat she calls the civil society ‘trap’: instead of building a movement for socialchange, groups are engaged in “stopping the ‘gap’ left by state retrenchmentand the ensuing loss of public welfare provisions” (p.175). In this scenario, socialactors such as women’s rights activists are reduced to the role of mere serviceproviders (and often inefficient ones, at that), a fig leaf in the process of massprivatization. The question is: was this what we wanted? Is this what we meantby ‘empowerment’ and ‘democratization’?I consider the civil society trap to be part of a broader historical and social process,which is clear to me only in retrospect(things seemed natural and State institutions and party politics,inevitable at the time). Early on in the as well as the sphere of publictransition period, the limited definition debate, were soon conceivedof ‘the political’ led to a peculiar divisionof roles in the public sphere. State proclaimed experts, most of whomof as ‘dirty’ and left to self-institutions and party politics, as well were uncritically committed to aas the sphere of public debate, wereneoliberal agenda and who viewedthe process of marketization assoon conceived of as ‘dirty’ and leftnon-negotiable. Meanwhile, theto self-proclaimed experts, most of‘idealists’ committed themselves towhom were uncritically committed tothe purportedly neutral ideal of civila neoliberal agenda and who viewedsociety.the process of marketization as nonnegotiable.Meanwhile, the ‘idealists’committed themselves to the purportedly neutral ideal of civil society.Today, I think that these idealists, on the run from ideological commitment,were the very people who, in another scenario, might have offered a politicalalternative to the neoliberal paradigm. One that would have involved a socialsafety net that could and should have been provided by the state. Withoutthe constricting ideal of ‘anti-politics,’ they might have transformed the pub-191

What ails civil society?lic sphere, engaging people in a truly democratic debate about the possiblepaths of transition itself; they might have built a continuity of values with thepolitical idealists of the pre-war period (stemming from the homegrown socialistand not the post-communist tradition). In short, had it not been for the ‘politicsof anti-politics’, a new left wing might have emerged, marginalizing thecorrupt post-communist forces and possibly preventing the rise of right-wingpopulism. Instead, with only a few exceptions (notably Jacek Kuron), effortswere chiefly poured into ‘serving society.’ Meanwhile, as Kinga Dunin, SlawomirSierakowski and others have argued, power in the public sphere was neatlydivided between the Market and the Church, the experts and the priests. Proclaimingthemselves to be outsiders to both power and ideology, civil societyactors were in no position to challenge this right-wing hegemony (neoliberal ineconomics and conservative in values). The key issues were never debated,because the answers had already been provided. No wonder the terms ‘democracy’and ‘civil society’ came to ring hollow to so many people.How did we end up in the blind alley of anti-politics? Chiefly because we leftthe politics to (mostly male) ‘experts’. The idea thatthe free market should be allowed to rule with aslittle state regulation and intervention as possiblewas all but a dogma in the transition era. All thosewho challenged the neoliberal paradigm (or evencalled it a paradigm, suggesting that it could be upfor debate), were labeled as ignoramuses, populistsor nut-cases. Jacek Kuron was seen as a saint –idealistic, but somewhat unrealistic and naïve. Thepower of this ideology and the fear of stigma was(and perhaps still is) tremendous. Hence, insteadInstead of creatinganother politicalscenario, people whobelieved in socialjustice retreated into‘anti-politics’; instead ofchallenging neoliberaldogma, we engaged indamage limitation.of creating another political scenario, people who believed in social justiceretreated into ‘anti-politics’; instead of challenging neoliberal dogma, we engagedin damage limitation.While it is true that NGOs helped a great deal at local level, it could also beargued that they were supplying the neoliberal state with an alibi. For example,gender injustice leads to the formation of women’s groups and NGOs, whichprovide services for women usually along single-issue lines (hotlines, legal advice,medical information, shelter for victims of violence, and sex educationin schools). Occasionally, we also demonstrate, protest or lobby, but ‘service’takes up most of our energy and resources. When protests do take place,state authorities are visibly uninterested: why should the government be worriedabout gender discrimination when that is what women’s NGOs are for?Feminism is thus reduced from a world-changing vision and grassroots politicalmovement to a series of professionally run institutions engaging in ‘projects’,which are forced to adapt to outside agendas and pressures because of theirdependence on funding.If civil society is by definition marginal to state institutions, those state institutionsare happy to take advantage of the fact, relegating activists to the status ofservice providers, or worse – charities. Twenty years down the road, many of the‘idealists’ I know are tired of this, and the politics of anti-politics is increasinglyviewed as a dead end. It was as a consequence of this realization that initiativessuch as the Greens 2004, Krytyka Polityczna (Political Critique), and the192

What ails civil society?Women’s Party was created in Poland. All three are overtly political, and definethe public sphere as the site of the struggle for power. On the other hand,they are also idealistic in their commitment to social justice. I see this as a longoverdue departure from the ‘civil society’ model, and an effort to re-connectpolitics and idealism.Specific difficultiesAs the above diagnosis suggests, I see the disease ailing civil society as essentiallysystemic. It is therefore difficult to pinpoint specific problems that could besolved within the existing framework. Most of the difficulties I can see take meback to the original problem with ‘anti-politics’, i.e. the civil society ‘trap’. Hereare three examples.First comes the massive public distrust of civil society institutions. This problem isone of alienation: for instance, many women complain about sexism, genderinequality etc, but nonetheless do not view the women’s movement as representingthem, nor is there a grassroots organization they might join. On thecontrary, the movement is perceived as a body of distant institutions, fundedby a group of suspicious outsiders. “There’s nowhere for us to go,” I hear youngfeminists complain again and again. And indeed, the vast majority of NGOsare not membership organizations. Rather than a movement to join, there are‘foundations’ which can be applied to forfinancial support, or appealed to (perhapsAt its root is the veryto protest against astatus and structure ofsexist advertising campaign).Some informal NGOs, and above all the groups DO exist, anda politically-minded project-based funding young woman couldsurely find one to join. system, which breeds Yet the NGO modelhas become so much a ruthless competition for part of the landscapethat they, too, are limited resources between perceived as serviceproviders. Many activ- people who theoretically ists complain aboutthe cynical culture of have a common goal. disengagement andgreed that surroundsus, and the fact thatstudents consider it chic to be socially and politically apathetic. They are infuriatedby the fact that people relate to us activists as clients, complaining anddemanding, rather than contributing and becoming active themselves. Sadly,this is a result of the very framework we ourselves established – one of service,rather than representation. De-politicization and NGO-ization have had a profoundlyalienating effect.Secondly, there are bitter conflicts both within and between NGOs. I am notan expert on this painful subject, but I believe that it, too, is structural, and notto be solved by means of ‘conflict resolution’ workshops, or the like. At its root isthe very status and structure of NGOs, and above all the project-based fundingsystem, which breeds ruthless competition for limited resources betweenpeople who theoretically have a common goal. The NGOs I know are also notmanaged democratically: in fact, the founder of any particular group oftenremains at the helm for decades. Even if the person in question is charismaticand deeply committed to the organization, its rigid power structure leads toconflicts and sometimes even its destruction.Thirdly, I would mention the lack of success in transforming civil society initiativesinto legislation. Many activists I know complain of the arrogance of politicians in193

What ails civil society?communicating with NGOs. Despite the respectful talk of “dialogue with socialpartners,” women’s NGOs are often ignored when it comes to policy making.Without exonerating the politicians, who are indeed often arrogant, and needto be held accountable, I would argue that the problem is not just in politicalresistance to our demands (gender equality legislation, etc.). Rather, it is systemic:once civil society had vacated the sphere of politics, social actors foundthemselves in a very weak negotiating position. Isolated NGOs (or even coalitionsof NGOs) without large membership and grassroots support have very littlemeans of exerting political pressure.Concluding remarksThe problems listed above are interconnected, and all related to the disadvantageousposition of social activism with regard to the state and the marketeconomy. I am convinced that by situating itself outside politics, civil societyhas contributed to its own marginalization. As I have argued above, the patternIsolated NGOs (oreven coalitions ofNGOs) without largemembership andgrassroots supporthave very littlemeans of exertingpolitical pressure.is circular: the neoliberal state fails to deliver basic socialprovisions, and NGOs – funded mostly by Westerninstitutions – respond to these needs by building professionalized,specialized structures designed to satisfyspecific needs. The donors prefer non-political projects(because of the assumptions of the civil societyframework), and so de-politicization is strengthenedfurther. As (some) needs are met, the state considersitself justified in its retrenchment strategy. Within civilsociety itself, there is less and less discussion of how to make the system morejust and equitable, because organizations are busy writing grant applicationsfor yet another project, which will help fill new gaps created by the unjust system.I do not wish to negate the good that has come from the work of NGOs. Thereare many wonderful initiatives around, aimed to alleviate injustice, eradicateinequality and fight prejudice. I continue to contribute to many, and have evenhelped to found some, including a feminist group and a stipend fund for youngpeople who otherwise could not afford to study in Warsaw. I wish many otherswell. However, I believe that, in the final analysis, thinking of ourselves asremaining ‘outside politics’ has been a costly mistake. Instead of getting to theroots of inequality and social exclusion, we ended up serving as a cushion tothe very system we were protesting against. It is not more NGOs to deal withmore problems that are needed, but a shift in the framework itself: new voicesin the public sphere, and grassroots political movements that will encourageparticipation. We must begin to re-examine and move beyond the politics ofanti-politics.Agnieszka Graffgraduated from Amherst College (USA,1993) and Oxford University (1995) andholds a Ph.D. in Literature from the University of Warsaw (1999). She is currently an assistantprofessor at the American Studies Center, University of Warsaw, where she teachesU.S. culture, literature, African American studies and women’s history. She also offersregular seminars on various aspects of feminist thought at the Warsaw University GenderStudies Center and at Collegium Civitas. Her current research interest is in genderand national identity (focusing on Poland) and in the rhetorical strategies of modernAmerican feminism. A scholar and activist in Poland, she has published extensivelyon gender in Polish public life.194

Being a citizen - not a profession but a commitmentLaunching a campaign to support vulnerable groups is more difficultthan conducting a survey on their needs - but the risks of mergingcivil society too much with social science are poor scientific qualityand a society without action, Anna Krasteva claimsBeing a citizen- not a professionbut a commitment195

Being a citizen - not a profession but a commitmentThe NarrativesHarry Potter was born as the greatest ever magician, the only one able to performthe perfect magic. Civil society was born as the magic of the transition,the essence of a longing for change. It was given the power to identify andarticulate that change, as classical institutional or representative mechanismswere overlooked. A representative of a small Serbian NGO commented:“In January 2000 [before the fall of Milosevic] I was invited to Sweden for ameeting with a minister... Later in the same year, in November [after the fall ofMilosevic] the same minister had a meeting with President Koštunica. So I washis contact in January and who was I at the time? Someone working for anNGO, which had five employees and some projects and computers. But to him,I was Serbia!”Paradoxically, the less representative and marginal an NGO was at the onsetof the change, the more legitimate they seemed to the West, due to their nonalignmentwith existing institutions. Conflict resolution, democratization, NATO,the EU, human rights – everybody, including the state and the mushroomingpolitical parties, were aware of the key narratives of post-communism. Therewas no conflict over these narratives and even forces, linked to and attachedto, the ancient regime were unable to generate an alternative discourse.The problem lies not in the content or authorship of these narratives, which wereimitative rather than innovative, but it lies in the speaker. Civil society was giventhe power to articulate the ideals of democratization most authentically.grand narratives? Whatety after these goals haveleast to some extent in theif not yet in the Westerndoes the civic sector of-in enriching the publictopics, priorities and visionsthose provided by theties?What comes after thecomes next for civil socialreadybeen attained, atnew EU member states,Balkans? What discoursefer now? Does it succeedsphere with alternatives,which are different fromstate and political par-Civil societyaccomplished itspurpose of being thebearer of the ideasof the transition,but what should itspurpose be after thetransition?Civil society accomplished its purpose of being the bearer of the ideas of thetransition, but what should its purpose be after the transition? I’ll outline my reflectionson these questions, articulating four points of tension and three directionsfor change.The DilemmasProfessionalization - CommitmentA perfect command of English, communication and teamwork skills, the abilityto manage projects and fundraise effectively: there are no visible differencesbetween the requirements of the civil sector and that of private business. Competent,dynamic and efficient - this is the profile of a successful NGO activist.This new professional is so self-confident that he creates his own arena in whichto excel, with a language he masters (project speak) and an ambitious aim(building democracy) that he is equipped to achieve.196

Being a citizen - not a profession but a commitmentThe declared objective of this arena is to show solidarity with the weak and thevulnerable, with the most visible result being the emergence of strong citizens.On one level, the theme of justice prevails – less discrimination, more equalityand the empowerment of the disadvantaged. On a more practical level, themost substantial achievement of civil society is to establish economically independent,self-confident citizens, who view the state critically as long as theirincome is not dependent on it. Civil society is an alternative to the state in termsof its ideas, but even more so, in terms of the ethos of this more autonomous,free, open and cosmopolitan social group.If the civil sector is aplace characterized byefficient managers andprofessional democracy,is there room for thecitizens themselves (theamateurs) to act, search,propose new ideas,experiment and makemistakes, to innovate?Paradoxically, this result has never been defined either as an aim or a possibleoutcome. Reinforcing the position of the middle class through the income generatedin the NGO sector is undoubtedly a positive result. What is less clear-cutis the professionalization of democracy. At the beginning of the transition, oneBulgarian politician in his address to an art forum, formulated a remarkabledistinction when he said “We, the democrats and you, the sculptors”. He hadbeen persuaded that democracy also needed sculptors, not only democrats,yet he was unable to imagine sculptor-democrats. If the civil sector is a placecharacterized by efficient managers and professionaldemocracy, is there room for the citizensthemselves (the amateurs) to act, search, proposenew ideas, experiment and make mistakes, to innovate?The Governmental-Nongovernmental SectorI work with a French NGO. Its experienced lawyerssearch for even the slightest, almost indiscerniblehints of a discriminative discourse in all the decreesand instructions, which the ministries or any otherpublic institution send out to the administration.They are highly critical of any abuse of human rights. So who is funding this vigilantand critical eye, which is unforgiving of any examples of state negligencewhatsoever? It is the state itself.Here, the governmental and nongovernmental sectors are closely linked. Yet,instead of financing a civil society which will act as a counterweight, curbingits excesses, the state often protects itself behind “crony NGOs”. Many stateand party gurus have NGOs of their own which play a double role: They absorbfunds intended for so-called civil society, giving their approval of the degreeof democracy evident in every decision, strategy or program. These are NGOswhich are almost never seen “in the field”, which are however, on the lists ofpartners, proudly demonstrated by public institutions to show their “openness”and “ability for dialogue”. NGOs as the hidden face of power is a lesser evil. Thebigger one is that these NGOs are often characterized by nepotism, the diversionof funds, and corruption.Independence IssuesA great problem of civil society, among others, is that it’s self-referential. It iswhat it has chosen to be. It is proud to be independent of the state and themarket, but how should we deal with that independence when it proves to197

Being a citizen - not a profession but a commitmentbe dislikeable or even distasteful? How do we handle nationalists and extremists?The problem lies in what stand civil society should take. Should it befriendthe environmentalist and forsake the nationalist? Orshould it put definitions aside and create a publicspace, where the environmentalist could debateon national identity and the nationalist could rallyagainst an illegal building set to be built in the localpark?It is much more laborintensiveand budgetconsumingto launch ahumanitarian campaignto support vulnerablegroups than it is toconduct a “survey” ontheir needs.Civic Participation - Scientific ResearchNGOs were the great hope for the social sciences inthe early 1990s. The economic crisis ousted science from financial priorities. Thiswas even more apparent in the social sciences, which were reforming muchfaster than the state. The non-governmental sector proved to be the only optionfor researchers to attend international forums for the first time, for new ideasto be studied, for critical reflection to be developed. We consider the earlydevelopment of entire fields to be related predominantly to NGOs. This is true ofminority, ethnic and gender studies, anticorruption analyses and human rights.Today two distinct profiles could be outlined. Firstly, there are researchers, makinguse of their leading positions in the non-governmental sector to fund theirown studies. Secondly, there are NGO activists, who are making use of scienceas a watertight alibi for absorbing funds. It is much more labor-intensive andbudget-consuming to launch a humanitarian campaign to support vulnerablegroups than it is to conduct a “survey” on their needs. There is a moral issue hereand a question of how funds should be absorbed.The normal functioning of science is not just a matter of financing, rather it isan academic environment of results, publishing serious policy suggestions andpeer-reviewed publications. All these checks traditionally used by science toBlurring the bordersbetween science andcivic participationis not entirelyhealthy for either. Itmakes science lessprofessional anddiverts resources fromcivic initiatives.protect scientific integrity are easily neglected whenprojects guarantee funds for publishing. Printing replacesediting and self-evaluation replaces peer reviews.Blurring the borders between science and civic participationis not entirely healthy for either. It makes scienceless professional and diverts resources from civicinitiatives.The ChangeThe year 2008 proved that ideas such as “yes, we can”, “change” and “hope”can energize and mobilize millions. It is fascinating that there is no rulebook tofollow and that we have to create our own path for development. My personalreflections on a radical rethinking of the civil sector involve three key areas:AutonomyA real civil society will begin when NGOs shake off their dependency on donors.They will be able to do this not only by diversifying their financial resources,but also generating and stimulating civic energy without monetary coverage.198

Being a citizen - not a profession but a commitmentFinancing ought to be channeled into activities, rather than into structures andinto initiatives, rather than into wages.DeinstitutionalizationThis should apply to NGOs 6 months for institutionsas well as other institutions.There is no reason for NGOsof repre-to stop existing and there isno reason for NGOs to con- sentative democracy;tinue to be identified withcivil society. NGOs are a6 years for a specific post-communist in-terpretation of civil society. market economy; In developed democracies,civil society is seen in terms 6 decades for a of the diversity of structuressuch as churches, universi- civil society. ties, trade unions and cooperatives.NGOs should notengulf civil society to thepoint where these organizations are unable to develop civil initiatives, clubs, adhoc groups and networks in a number of different and flexible forms. The focuswill no longer be on structures to be supported or maintained, but rather oncitizens who unite around specific goals and activities.De-professionalizationBeing a citizen ought not to become a profession and efficiency should notreplace creativity and activity. A radical transformation of the main playersoperating in civil society is needed, as well as discovering the volunteer. It tookdecades to shift from the vote censitaire to universal suffrage. Post-communistNGOs should not be turned into a “democratic census”, civil society has tobe open to the educated and cognisant, as well as to everyone else. A civilsociety is built through the empathy and activity of everyone, from farmers toteachers, to immigrants and intellectuals, to owners and civil servants, to studentsand representatives of minorities.It was Ralf Dahrendorf, who mapped out the agenda of the post-communistchange: 6 months for institutions of representative democracy; 6 years for amarket economy; 6 decades for a civil society. In the first two decades therehas been a lot of society and politics in civil society.Now the time for the citizen to play a role has come. Thegrand objectives have been achieved, so now developingcivic imagination has become a must.Anna Krasteva iseditorin-chiefofthe journal Southeastern Europe, published by Brill. She is directorof the Department of Political Sciences and of CERMES (theCentre for Refugees, Migration and Ethnic Studies) at the NewBulgarian University in Sofia, Bulgaria. She is a member of theeditorial board of the journal Nationalism and Ethnic Politics,a member of the international scientific board of the networkMaisons des sciences de l’homme in France, as well as of theinternational scientific board of the Institute for Central, Easternand Balkan Europe at the University of Bologna. She has beenawarded the international scientific honor of « Chevalier dansl’Ordre des Palmes Académiques ». She teaches courses onethnic and migration issues at the European master in Sarajevo Democracy and humanrights and regularly gives lectures at European universities and institutes of political sciences.199

Civil society in Poland- some remarks by ahistorian of ideas ByAndrzej WaskiewiczCivil society in Poland - some remarks by a historian of ideasThere was completely different story of civil society during theera of the resistance movement. Andrzej Waskiewicz meansthat it takes time for bourgeois to turn into citizens and in themeantime civil society is relying on a few enthusiastsCivilsocietyin Poland- someremarksby ahistorianof ideas200

Civil society in Poland - some remarks by a historian of ideasIam a historian of ideas, and not a practicing sociologist or a social activist.Yet, as well as being an academic teacher, I also used to publish a monthlyjournal devoted to public affairs and teach young social and political leaders.Now I am involved in setting up a liberal arts college, so I’ve had a chanceto see the idea of civil society being translated into social practice.Paradoxically enough, for once, social practice preceded the idea; usuallyin Polish history, it was the other way around: imported social ideas were discussedby the Polish intelligentsia before they affected Polish society. Contraryto Marx’s theory, the consciousness of Polish elites frequently did not reflectreality, or if they did, it was the realities of other nations. The years 1980-81 weredifferent. What the people of Poland did then, was both spontaneous and surprisinglymature. Had martial law not suppressed their activities with brute force,they might have evolved into an active citizenry forming a dense network ofNGOs. Yet this experience also showed that such activities may be in vain whenthey lack state protection, let alone state support. Thanks to Solidarity’s comebackin 1989, some of these ideas and practices were resumed.After December 13th, the social enthusiasm of 1980-81 was quickly stifled. Just ahandful of Solidarity activists turned into active conspirators, while most of themturned into family men and women. The scarcity of basic necessities inducedthe attitude of individual adjustment to the hardships of everyday existence.People came together to form mutual assistance networks for the exchange ofbasic goods. Those in conspiracy lived within closed circles in an atmosphere ofintimacy. The rules of clandestine work breed trust, but it is always limited to afew insiders, and accompanied by as much mistrust of (numerous) outsiders. Soconspiracy by no means promotes greater civility than does private life; in fact,it can resemble it and occasionally be a substitute for it. Even if people trust oneanother and collaborate on a non-profit basis, there is no civility without a publicsphere; this was the case in the Poland of 1982-1989. Actually, the communistauthorities forbade even such forms of collaboration as building societies thatallegedly posed a threat to the socialist order.Strangely, and yet this time in line with Polish history,civil society came back as an idea. Not without a Polishintellectual contribution and based on the Polish socialexperience of 1980-81, this idea resurfaced in themid 1980s. It was addressed to a society which was buta shadow of the one which had inspired the Westerntheorists a few years earlier. The 62-percent turnout atthe first semi-free elections was not an accident. Thepassive attitude towards public life had not changedovernight. And the idea of civil society was demanding.Contrary to what we can find in Locke’s, Hegel’s,or even de Tocqueville’s works, it was a purely normativeidea. It set such high standards of public life thatThe idea of civilsociety wasdemanding. Contraryto what we canfind in Locke’s,Hegel’s, or evende Tocqueville’sworks, it was a purelynormative idea. It setsuch high standardsof public life that veryfew, if any, societiescould fulfill them.very few, if any, societies could fulfill them. This is a well-known story, so it willsuffice to say here that civil society was simply meant to be a substitute for thestate, and so it was easy to ridicule. Since this idea became one of the principlesunderlying the new social and political order, the critics could say thatit served the ruling class as an excuse for not doing what the state is supposedto do. Do it yourselves because we cannot do it for you. And this was a com-201

Civil society in Poland - some remarks by a historian of ideaspletely new idea to the Polish mentality, since the communist state had calledfor patience and sacrifice on such occasions.Of course, there are a number of striking examples of how civic initiatives sortedout problems which the authorities had, for years, been unable to address. Yetthose examples cannot be said to be representative; rather, they serve as acounterpart of the capitalist myth of ‘shoeshine boy to successful millionaire’.Perhaps most Poles wouldhave been happy underthe communist regime if Few people become only they had been givena little more freedom to community activists organize themselves withoutbeing hampered by out of the pure need thousands of absurd regulationsor simply by the to act in the public lack of good will on thepart of the officials. ‘They’ sphere, most do it failed to solve many socialissues, but did not allow out of a private need citizens to solve problemsthemselves, either. How- which can only be ever, after 1989, the statewas ‘ours’. What do we met by public action. have the state for? Fewpeople become com- munity activists out of thepure need to act in the public sphere, most do it out of a private need whichcan only be met by public action. No wonder that the idea of civil society inits normative form was embraced mostly by the intelligentsia: it resembled theold idea of public service, the one to which this social stratum was said to bedevoted and which defined its social status. For some time in the early 1990s,a characteristic social advertisement was shown on Polish public television: agroup of actors pushing a cart with a Polish national flag and calling their compatriotsfor help.The weakness of civil society in post-communist countries is widely attributedto the burden of their past. However, not all social and political apathy canbe explained by that, nor do the hardships of everyday life provide a better ormore complete explanation. The withdrawal from the public sphere in the late1980s and early 1990s was accompanied by focusing on family life and alsoon consumption, which at that time was quite limited because of the scarcityof available goods. Yet the appetites had been awakened, and they couldsoon be satisfied in mushrooming supermarkets. Even before Poland becamea democratic state, it had turned into a would-be consumerist society. Thusthe labor pains of civil society cannot be seen exclusively in the context of thestruggle between the old and the new social, economic and political systems.Certainly, the remains of the old system were an obstacle to the emergence ofcivil society, but the new order promoted it only to a limited extent and, at thesame time, created conditions that did not encourage civic initiatives.There is an old controversy over whether capitalism and democracy are mutualfriends, as most mainstream social scientists assume nowadays, or bitterenemies, as some leftist ones have traditionally claimed. The case of Polandcannot be said to serve as an example for the proponents of either approach.The said consumption was not the product of mature capitalism but of corruptsocialism. If we say that it drives the people’s attention towards the private insteadof the public sphere, we should rather follow Machiavelli’s bitter remarksthat wealth makes them indifferent to the public good. In Poland, the concernfor wealth has found a noble justification: the needs of the family. The familyis the central institution for most Poles; all the surveys show that happy familylife makes them personally happy even if they are disappointed with politics,202

Civil society in Poland - some remarks by a historian of ideasthe Catholic Church and other public institutions. And yet, happy people maybe unhappy citizens. As unhappy citizens they tend to blame the state and itsagenda for all the miseries of public life, and this explains why they are in favorof a strong state, whatever that means.The black legend of civil society is based on the assumption that its institutionsundermine the state. In fact, this is one of many half-truths. As shown by RobertPutnam’s classic study, citizens’ associations make local government more effectivein northern Italy, where they flourish,than in southern Italy, For Rousseau, all kinds of where they are far lessnumerous. The authori- social institutions bring ties are stronger if theyare not responsible inequality into political for every aspect of sociallife. Yet all this will life and corrupt the state sound unconvincing ifwe simply change thewhich works at the servicevocabulary and associationsbecome “con-nections”, foundations:of the wealthy and themighty. In his view, such“foreign money”, fund-risers: “swindlers”, etc.organizations are nothingSuch people and orgamorethan agents ofnizations stand in theway of government particular private interests policy. One could attributethese thoughts multiplied by the number to populists, but suchmistrust towards so- of their members. cial institutions is alsocharacteristic of Jean- Jacques Rousseau,often mistaken for one of the founding fathers of modern democracy. There isno social sphere in his republic that is a sphere between the individual and thepolitical. For Rousseau, all kinds of social institutions bring inequality into politicallife and corrupt the state which works at the service of the wealthy and themighty. In his view, such organizations are nothing more than agents of particularprivate interests multiplied by the number of their members.As we know, the whole truth is that civil society comprises a plethora of social institutions.There are associations of medical doctors and associations of peoplewronged by them, corporations of lawyers and clubs for their wives. Some ofthem bring together people with a concern for the public good, while othersare watchdogs of group interests. The former are hailed and don’t need anyjustification and the latter often become targets of populist campaigns. True,not all of them have been set up to serve the public interest, and yet, as de Tocquevilleteaches, they all do, in a sense, when they protect individuals, many orjust a few, against the almighty central government. The examples are numerous.They do it in their own self-interest and society as whole benefits from that.But it can be the other way round, and evidence for that is also abundant. All inall, even though they may not be professed advocates of democratic government,by limiting it they serve it better than the ‘true believers’Thus, we needn’t love them for that, nor do we have to particularly worry aboutthem. They are based on vested interests, and interests make them self-sustained.In fact, the reputation of civil society rests upon these bodies, as theycan easily spoil it. The exclusivist policies of many vocational organizationsmake them ideal targets of government actions and provide an excuse for limitingtheir autonomy. And they could, with very little effort, do something morethan improve decent conduct. They could support public benefit organizationswhich have won public sympathy for NGOs by their disinterested activities anddevotion to public causes. They could offer their know-how: legal assistance,accounting services, help in fund-rising, PR, etc. to those small organizations203

that cannot afford it within their own limited means.Small organizations have often lots of enthusiasm which cannot be properly turned to publicbenefit because they are rather “clumsy” in the bureaucratic context; no wonder manyof them are losing heart when faced with the “rules and regulations”. And this is a great loss,because the strength of such organizations lies in interpersonalrelations. Their members are often friends in the old sense of theword that is they are supporters of a public cause, just like theFriends of the Constitution of the 3rd May. Or they are just friends,a small, tight-knit group of people, for many of whom actingtogether, whatever their cause, is one of their formative experiences.Bigger groups, which have crossed the organizationalthreshold, cannot work properly without any institutional culture.And the very notion of “institutional culture” sounds abhorrentto people afraid of routine. And yet routine is not the equivalentCommunal activityhas been diminishingin recent years. Theromantic phase ofthe development ofcivil society seems tobe over.of callousness, an organization is not a rigid hierarchy, and pursuing a career does notnecessarily mean betraying one’s calling. In short, the point is to combine enthusiasm withefficiency.Polish sociologists notice that communal activity has been diminishing in recent years. Theromantic phase of the development of civil society seems to be over. The group-profileof the Polish intelligentsia is changing; its young generation much more closely resemblesthe professional elites of other states. In the long run, for civil society to survive, its idea andpractices have to be spread to other social strata. Most importantly, to the middle classwhich is not yet very numerous in Poland and tends to keep itself to itself in the populargated communities. In fact, most of the new housing estates in big cities are closed to nonresidents.In the spirit of Rousseau we would say that it will take time for the bourgeois to turninto citizens or, being more realistic, one would hope for the next generation to discoverenlightened self-interest and civility. Before they do so and develop “the habits of theirhearts”, just like Alexis de Tocqueville found them in 19th century in America, we will have tobeat a rhythm to the heartbeats of enthusiasts: the most spectacular civil society success inPoland is the Great Christmas Charity Orchestra, a striking example of how enthusiasm andprofessionalism can go hand in hand.Andrzej Waśkiewiczis Deputy Headof College atthe University of Warsaw’s Collegium Artes Liberales which works on interdisciplinarystudies in the fields of social sciences, the humanities andnatural sciences.

A hitchhiker’sguide tophilanthropyPhilanthropy is built on mutual benefit and community,charity is a vertical transfer from thosewho have to those who don’t, claims Chris Worman,arguing that CSOs own attitude is the mainhindrance for successful sustainability throughlocal fundraising.

A hitchhiker’s guide to philanthropyIt was a dark and stormy night… A colleague and I were waiting for the bushome from a village where we were working. For some reason, the bus drovestraight past us – literally leaving us in the dust. Plan B was hitch hiking. UnfortunatelyI look like a Viking and my colleague looks like a member of Hells Angels(albeit a smiling one). We did not think we had much hope. Sooner or later, theautumnal darkness of Transylvania descended. We were considering a campfirewhen a gentleman stopped. As we made smalltalk on the ride the kindlyOur ability todriver asked about our work.We described a campaign connect with to encourage citizens to usetheir 2% tax redirection in people like him, support of the projects andNGOs they think best serve will determine the community. The helpfulchauffer pondered the our success or concept for a moment thensaid, “No way. People here failure in the don’t help each other.”next 20 years.Let the irony sink in for a mo-ment. Here, the man whostopped to pick up two strange characters in the middle of the night was arguingthat people like him do not perform mutually supportive acts. The icing onthe cake was when he would not take any money to cover his gas. “My pleasure”he said as we thanked him.I believe this story is telling about civil society in Central and Eastern Europe(CEE) and the challenges faced by the civil society movement. This story mattersbecause it is one average man’s reflection on our collective work. Somewherealong the way, individuals like him, members of the society we serve,seem to have been left out of the civil society loop. Ourability to connect with people like him, will determine oursuccess or failure in the next 20 years.Without activephilanthropy,and the pursuitthereof, there isnot much hopefor our field.CEE Civil Society hasdeveloped a lineof charity-focuseddevelopment thatis unsustainableand questionablein its service to civilsocietyI have chosen to look at the disconnect between ourchauffer and civil society through the lens of philanthropy.First because I believe that without active philanthropy,and the pursuit thereof, there is not much hope for ourfield. Second, developing philanthropy is my job as the director of a communityfoundation and these are the questions we dealwith everyday. Third, I believe CEE Civil Society hasdeveloped a line of charity-focused developmentthat is unsustainable, questionable in its service to civilsociety, and in need of rethinking as the era of majorforeign donors draws to a close and the EuropeanUnion becomes our new reality.Grassroots giving and philanthropicfoundationsBefore proceeding I should clarify what I mean by ‘philanthropy’ and ‘charity’and how I see them as different. Webster’s Dictionary defines philanthropyas “goodwill to fellow men, especially: active effort to promote human welfare.”At a recent conference I heard a group postulate that philanthropy canbe further divided into philanthropy of community and philanthropy for community.In their terms, philanthropy of community is based on people helpingpeople in a mutually beneficial and reciprocal form of self help. When discussingphilanthropy in this article, I mean philanthropy of community. Thus, when206

A hitchhiker’s guide to philanthropyI speak about philanthropy, I mean the ‘active effort to promote human welfare’based in mutually beneficial systems for self help. This may not be altruisticenough for some but we will get to that later…Philanthropy for community, on the other hand, as defined by the group fromSouth Africa, involves resource transfer from those of high net wealth, to thoseof lesser net wealth. I will call this charity. If you look up the definition of ‘Charity,’you find terms and phrases such as “giving, aid given to those in need, institutionfounded on charitable gifts, etc…” Charity, unlike philanthropy, is moreof a financial proposition and inevitably involves more than a transfer of wealth.To access charitable gifts, one must accept a transfer of ideals, morals, andpriorities.On one hand we have philanthropy as a more horizontal, mutually beneficial,peer-to-peer, community support system and on the other we have charityas a more vertical transfer from those who have to those who have not. Beforeaddressing the assertion that charity has become the modus operandi ofCEE civil society, it is helpful to consider some historical context contrasting thisregion and the United States. Why the United States? Because in most of mydiscussions regarding civil society in CEE, NGO folks refer to U.S. models, oftenon dubious grounds.First, a brief history of philanthropy in CEE…Pre-communist philanthropy in Eastern Europe seems to have been primarily asystem of charitable patronage. Beginning in the Middle Ages wealthy familiesbuilt churches. Wealthy churches occasionally built schools and hospitals,often based on gifts from wealthy families. Later, groups of merchants sometimesorganized funds for a civil project to aid in commerce. By the turn of thelast century in our community there were some fascinating examples of charitysuch as a miller who donated his Saturday profits to charity, a women’s groupwho raised funds for children, and some middle class organizations such asbook clubs, hunting clubs etc… In our community (and I doubt this was unique)there was also a parallel philanthropic tradition based around communal work.This tradition was based on work, not wealth. Where work needed to be done,citizens organized themselves and their resources to complete projects.History of philanthropy in the United States is somewhat different. While charityexisted, civil society seems to have been much more focused on systems of mutualsupport. The Colonies (later the United States) were set up to export theirresources with as little investment as possible, forcing citizens to create theirown institutions. Volunteer organizations arose to cover everything from firefightingto libraries, universities and militias. The ‘Founding Fathers,’ understoodthat these small, locally driven organizations taught civic duties, and entrustedthem with the responsibility of creating good citizens and teaching responsibilityin the inherent capitalism of the American system.As industrialization began shaping modern America, philanthropy also industrialized.The first large foundations (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, etc…), soughtefficient and ‘scientific’ approaches to understanding and solving ‘root causes’of social ills like poverty and hunger. A class of NGO professionals was cultivatedand they came to see their work as different from the myriad of local creditunions and food shelters who were dealing with the effects of these problems.207

A hitchhiker’s guide to philanthropySome argue that this process has actually weakened civil society by redirectingpower from local communities to a class of NGO professionals who managethe charitable order. Regardless of its current form, American civil society spenthundreds of years as a largely philanthropic, mostly voluntary, sector, buildingtrust and indoctrinating citizens. The movement began as a grass rootsresponse to local needs and, over time, has morphed into a blend of majorcharitable donors and locally driven organizations.While this was happen-ing, Eastern Europe sawThese small, locallythe rise and fall of com- munism and arguablydriven organizationsthe erasure of non-gov-ernmental civil society.taught civic duties,What happened afterand entrusted themcommunism? One of themost amusing answers with the responsibility I have received is that“someone said we need- of creating good ed civil society, and it wasthe only thing paying, so citizens and teaching we got a civil society.”Civil society promised responsibility in the democracy and healingfor the ‘post-communist inherent capitalism of man’ who is still often describedas cynical, atom- the American system ized and driven by selfinterestalone. Civil soci-ety promises to rebuildsocial capital and major donors have invested significant amounts pursuing thispromise. But how to lay the foundation of civil society - grass-roots philanthropyor the more ‘scientific,’ charitable approach?Charity picks up the tab for philanthropy and thechallenges therein…It seems like the answer has been a combination of both with a tendency towardscharity. Enlightened donors have supported the development of grassroots philanthropic society through a system of charitable contributions. Thesecontributions were necessarily charitable in nature. Funding had to come fromsomewhere, and since there was no visible indigenous civil society, it had tocome with a model, morals and ideals which could offer guidance and a rubricto measure results.In short, charity was supposed to pay for philanthropy. Did it work? Yes and no.Yes in that in most countries in the region, philanthropy and volunteerism arereportedly on the rise. There are thousands of local NGOs, and young peopleare getting involved in the civil sector (albeit often against the wishes of theirparents).On the other hand, our Good Samaritan chauffer did not believe philanthropyhad a chance. Nor would he associate stopping to help us with philanthropy(which it is if you accept our earlier definitions of mutually beneficial “goodwillto fellow men, especially: active effort to promote human welfare”). Thedriver’s disbelief, reflective in some ways of a lack of understanding of, or trustin, NGOs, indicates that the philanthropic ideal has not been communicated toregular people. Thus, charity paying for philanthropy has not fully succeeded.This is partly the fault of local NGOs who have not communicated well or invitedpeople like our driver to participate in philanthropy. In my experience, few CEENGOs communicate well, citing reasons ranging from lack of confidence ormedia savvy to outright shame. Whatever their reasons, community memberslike our driver don’t get the message. I have heard from numerous NGOs that208

A hitchhiker’s guide to philanthropycommunication with locals ‘is not necessary thanks to foreign support, which isfine because we don’t want to do it anyway. It feels like begging.’This difficulty in communicating is complicated by the language in use. AudreLorde’s famous statement ‘The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’shouse’ suggests it is basically impossible to conceptualize a new system whenusing the language of an existing one. I believe there is some of the samehappening here. CEE NGOs, and in particularthe civil society devel-Community membersopment organizationswho train them, have like our driver don’t been trained in the processof charity by for- get the message. I eign donors while beingasked to seed philan- have heard from thropic ideals they couldnever have practiced. numerous NGOs thatcommunication withThe combination of locals ‘is not necessary poor communicationskills, a charity-based thanks to foreign education, lack of indigenousmodels, and the support, which is fine fact that simply tellingpeople what to dobecause we don’t wantand paying them to doto do it anyway. It feelsit is easier, keeps the charity-based systemlike begging.’alive. The system showsitself in discussions aboutfundraising which focusalmost solely on majordonors, in trainings where developed NGOs push theoretical models whichhave few practical examples in CEE, and anytime an NGO leader feels entitledto say that average citizens don’t know what they need and don’t have thetime to care. It becomes apparent in their fundraising when NGOs copy andpaste their ‘need’ statement from one application to another to meet donorneeds without stepping outside to ask anyone whose needs they are ostensiblyto meet.There is real danger in perpetuating charitable models because charity is notmotivational to average people. It does not reach out and build social capitalor invite people into the civil sphere. One reason for this is that the power structureimplicit in charity is too often patronizing. I have seen civil society professionalswalk into communities and explain without any hesitation what neededto be done to fix the local problems and local people. Unsurprisingly the programsnever took root and did not find support from locals like our chauffer.Who likes to be told they have problems instead of asked what problems needfixing and, moreover what those problems are and how to fix them, insteadof being asked what problems impact their daily lives? And is this the point ofbuilding a civil society? Or is it an attempt to force one?When I ask specifically about encouraging local philanthropy,NGOs tend to trot out flashy acts of charity suchCharity is notmotivationalas rewarding big donors with media coverage and galas.to averagepeople. It doesThis can be lucrative but may prove unsustainable and selfdefeatingin the long-term. Big donors are often managednot reach outand build social through Donors Clubs (yes, we have one too) which arecapital or invite often not based on mission, but on being part of a grouppeople into the which has the power and responsibility to give. Clubs arecivil sphere easier to manage but when markets crash, big donors disappear,quickly undermining sustainability as we have allseen in recent months. An often repeated note in support of major donor is that209

A hitchhiker’s guide to philanthropyif a few big fish contribute, the little fish will follow. When we talk to averagecitizens, however, they have proven highly skeptical of large charitable giving,often convinced that it is somehow money laundering. In fact, it threatens toturn regular citizens away as they have been shown the rewards system formajor gifts and begin to question the efficacy of their own smaller contributions.Though big donor giving can be an important part of philanthropy,promoting only big donor charity can be self-defeating.If average people are not motivated to invest inmutually beneficial systems, they will not learn the value ofinvesting in civil society and soon there is no foundation fromwhich to develop local fundraising capacities, involve volunteersor get communities to solve local problems. Peoplelearn helplessness; they learn that the best way to solve a bigproblem is to wait for a wealthy person to come along andfix it for them. If there is no long-term training of locals then there is no long-termtrust building and the big local donor of tomorrow’s charitable campaign willsimply not exist. Further, we have found local donors more apt to give if themasses are shown as supportive.People learnhelplessness; theylearn that the bestway to solve abig problem is towait for a wealthyperson to comealong and fix it forthem.What about philanthropy? And whatever happened toAltruism?So, if professional NGOs are perpetuating charity systems, what about the restof civil society? In our experience, there is a healthy grass-roots movement thatis fairly philanthropic in practice. As a grantmaker we are constantly encouragingsmall grass-roots initiatives to market themselves and reach out. A critiquewe hear from professional NGO folks (reflecting the root cause vs. effects argument)is that these small initiatives do not really change anything. I would arguethat these small initiatives, driven by people who see a local problem andwish to solve it, represent ideal civil society. We believe, as an organization,that by encouraging small initiatives based on real local needs and solutions,the initiators may be inspired to establish nonprofits and continue their work. Sofar we have been rewarded in this with 4 new and sustainable initiatives beginningout of 20 grants in the last year.Is this thepoint ofbuilding acivil society?Or is it anattempt toforce one?And, if charity can lead to a bit of downward spiral, canphilanthropy be used to build civil society? I hear a lot ofdoubt because philanthropy too relies on social capital.However, though there may be little trust from person toperson, the building blocks of social capital are here. Individuals,when directly, asked will often volunteer, giveto a cause they understand and organize around issuesrelevant to their lives and the future of their children. Wehave seen this in our work both locally in our small townand in nearby villages. Secondarily, after decades of deprivation, individualsseem quite happy to act in their own self interest. This is a feeling that can beharnessed but requires us to drop some pretense around altruism as a necessarycomponent of philanthropy.But we often hear NGO professionals claiming citizens should participate outof some altruistic purity of soul and intention. And I agree with this in principle,210

A hitchhiker’s guide to philanthropyso why question the efficacy of promoting altruism as part of philanthropy inCEE? Without getting into a debate about whether or not altruism even trulyexists, we can perhaps agree that an environment that encourages people toperform altruistic acts is lacking in CEE where individuals have no recent backgroundin philanthropy and little understanding of how NGOs are currently servingthem. Another reason to question altruism as motivational lies in languageand recent history. Since volunteerism is a good example of altruism, I offer thefollowing quote about the perfect volunteer:“He should have a great sense of duty, a sense of duty toward the societywe are building, toward our fellow men as human beings and toward all menaround the world… And alongwith that: deep sensitivityto all problems, sensitiv- Individuals, ity to injustice; a spiritthat rebels against every wrong,when directly,whoever commits it ...asked will oftenEach and every one of you mustthink about how tovolunteer, givechange reality, how to make itbetter...”to a cause theyunderstand andSounds great. Sounds like de- organize around scriptions from the‘what makes a good volunteer’ issues relevant session of a workshopwe hosted this year. But this to their lives and speech was deliveredby Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara de- the future of their scribing the perfectYoung Communist. The similar- children. ity in the terminologypromoted by selfless (altruistic)service to civil societyand communist propaganda brings up an interesting point. As with fearsaround using the word ‘volunteerism’ due to an historical context of forced labor,could it be that the very language of civil society as we understand it, builtupon altruistic idealism, sets off alarms in CEE?Inviting and showing by doingIf so, and this deserves some study, we need to reclaim this language throughpositive examples and leadership. In the meantime, however, we simply cannotrely on altruism. What we can trust people to do is look out for themselves.This self-interest can be leveraged into philanthropic acts based on mutualinterest, particularly if the entry bar is set low, leading to a base from whichphilanthropy can grow. The challenge to all of us then, is to develop the communicationsand programs that show individuals that acting for community is intheir own self-interest. We have seen this in our work through simple, concreteactions such as volunteer playground renovations. We asked the communityif they would like to revive the communal work tradition that was mentioned inthe history section. They said yes and we said, where? Bloc associations andlocal groups identified playgrounds, provided labor and some funds. On thefirst day, more than 100 volunteers painted and repaired equipment at 4 playgrounds.Afterward, several organizations applied to our small grants fund todo their own renovations. It was very personal, concrete and direct - - you canmake the playground your kids use a safer place to play. And, this programis becoming sustainable. We have launched an employee giving campaignspecifically around this program seeking 1 RON (about .25 euro per employee)per month to keep the bar low. So far, we have more than 90% uptake andindividuals are giving on average 5 RON per month. We included a 15% administrativecost to cover operations and this has been both appreciated andacceptable to donors.211

A hitchhiker’s guide to philanthropyMore abstract philanthropy seems possible as well. For instance, the 2% forOdorhei campaign (the one our chauffer had doubts about) asked individualsto redirect 2% of their taxes to local NGOs we had screened for quality programmingand transparency. The campaign slogan was “What can my 2%do for Odorhei?” but the campaign also challenged citizens to exert a bit ofcontrol over this small percentage of tax, “keeping it in our community workingfor you.” Again direct, but not so simple – this campaign required a leap of faiththat the funds would go to work in the community without immediate visibleresults. And still individuals participate – over 3 years, campaign participationhas gone up from 14% of local tax-payers to 43%.A business example is a loyalty card campaign we launched with a local grocerychain. When the consumer uses the card, s/he receives a 1% discount plusspecial sales. Additionally, 1% of their bill is donated to the Foundation. Theconsumer saves some money and the Foundation benefits financially, whichis returned to the com-munity in grants. The businessbenefits financially Fears around through customer loyalty.Both benefit from the using the word reputation of having organizedsomething good‘volunteerism’ due toin a difficult time. Unlikean historical contexta sponsorship negotiationwith the business, this wasof forced labor,an easy sell and consum- ers are excited. As thecould it be that thefund grows and projectsvery language ofare supported, we will invitethe list of card carriers civil society as we for volunteer and fundraisingcampaigns and they understand it, sets off should be conditioned bytheir usage to respond. alarms in CEE? We hope it grows into amodel for ‘doing well bydoing good.’Why bother?Philanthropy is a lot of work. It is slow and the results are often small. Is it worthit? The answer to this question depends on what you think civil society shoulddo – build social capital? Improve quality of life? Get individuals involved intheir own futures? If you think it is any one of these then I believe that the focuson philanthropic systems is not only worthwhile, but necessary. Investingin philanthropy is an investment in your own organization and others becausethe process of building local support is educational and helps overcome thecommunications barriers described earlier in relation to charity. When you getsomeone involved in what you do, you can create a life-long supporter of civilsociety. This has been most apparent in our work with individuals who have becomevolunteers. Most of them cannot wait to volunteer again and we haveredirected several of them to other organizations. They have become donorsfor the first time and more importantly, some of them have started their owninitiatives. This is good for all of us.Finally, with the exit of foreign donors (USAID in Romania, for example, built numerousNGOs before exiting as E.U. programs began and others are planningto depart) and the transition to E.U. funding it is imperative to develop localphilanthropic systems. I have yet to be convinced that the E.U. is good for grassroots or medium sized civil society initiatives due to the inherent administrativechallenges. With others leaving too and the E.U. not quite meeting the needsof civil society, we must lay the base for development locally. In our work, wemust support and encourage small and medium sized initiatives that can inspire212

A hitchhiker’s guide to philanthropyand train future leaders.Again, the work is slow but it means that we may build asustainable movement. It also means that the next timemy colleague explains what we are doing to a strangeman in a car, in a field, in the middle of the night; hemight be less incredulous… The future of philanthropyand civil society is in convincing this man and others likehim, to come into our missions and see for themselvesWhy bother?Philanthropy is a lotof work. It is slowand the results areoften small. Is itworth it?why our work is important to them and their community. As we look ahead intothe next 20 years, I believe we must think honestly about how we approach developmentof the civil sector, show some social capital of our own and trust othersto lead themselves as a basis for long-term development of our movement.Chris Wormanhas worked in theNGO sector since1999. Starting as President of the Lawrence University CommunityCouncil, Chris worked with several NGOs in the United States includingthe Guthrie Theater and Special Olympics Minnesota where heserved as Direct Marketing and Foundations Manager. In 2006, whiletraining with Peace Corps Romania, Chris heard a presentation onRomanian fundraising mechanisms. Afterwards, Chris began consideringthe important role community foundations (CFs) might play inthe development of Romanian civil society, the re-establishment ofsocial capital, and how he might support this movement. Since then,Chris has played an active role in the Romanian CF movement andhe organized the Odorheiu Secuiesc Community Foundation afterbuilding support for the concept within Odorhei through the ‘2% forOdorhei’ campaign. In addition to OSCF, Chris has worked directlywith, or presented workshops to, more than 250 NGOs on marketingand fundraising, serves as a consultant to the national CF movementand has written extensively on NGO development. Chris is also interestedin rural development and has developed several programs including a socialenterprise and a pilot rural biogas project because then he can play outside.213

Concern + trust = hopeCodru Vrabie reflectson why civil societyis being accused ofinappropriate ties topolitics and leadershipissues that leadsto burn out syndromesand one-man showsrather than movements

Concern + trust = hopeIn early 1990, in just about the last weeks of my military service (I’d been draftedjust a few months before the anti-communist revolution of 1989), Romanian TVwent up in flames over some terrifying footage of HIV-positive children heldin terrible conditions at the gruesome castle of a former nobleman, in a remotelocation of the Romanian North-West. I was only 18 and a half, and that wasthe first time I heard about civil society organizations coming over from WesternEurope, with truckloads of humanitarian aid—food, medicine, clothes—to helpthe children, as well as seniors and adults, of a country whose rulers kept themfamished, diseased and poorly clothed during decades of communist rule. On26 June 2008, during an NGO-sponsored debate over the need to reform theRomanian Constitution, the former President Emil Constantinescu (1996-2000)blamed domestic civil society for the shortcomings of the current state of affairs,outlining the stark contrast between the civic activists’ situation during thecommunist regime and after: Then, they were very few in numbers, and had notools, no laws, no resources, but still achieved radical change; now, they arequite a lot, have all the necessary instruments at their disposal, but achieve nothing!I was shocked, and I felt wronged, because for the past ten years I’d beeninvolved with Romanian civil society, affiliated to several NGOs, and even representingthose involved in the fight against corruption on the National IntegrityCouncil; because I believe that my actions of the past 10years brought about change; because I do not feel weare so many, just as I do not think we have all the instrumentswe need... The question, then, is obvious: Againstwhat standards and/or benchmarks should we measuresuccess in civil society? Why are perceptions so different—at least between myself and the President?ControversyIn his speech of June, President Constantinescu clearly stated that:The question,then, is obvious:Against whatstandards and/or benchmarksshould wemeasure successin civil society?“All misfits of the intellectual elite and civil society can be traced either to vestedinterests, to lack of vision or to intellectual laziness, that [generally] prevents themembers thereof from being informed and knowledgeable about the thingsthey discuss and debate. For 18 years, our civil society has obsessed with politics!Why? Because of its own ineptitude! It’s easy to blame politics for not achievingthings that civil society itself should have done. [. . .] I must tell you—if an objectivejudgment is in order—that politicians achieved, in 18 years, NATO and EU integration,the transformation of the economy. What has civil society achieved?The model of the lesser evil, types of pathetic debates, the creation—unique toRomania—of a lip-service press, unacceptable anywhere else in the free world.Hence, [in my opinion] Romanian civil society regressed, being weaker now thanin communist times [. . .]. Having a civil society that pays tribute to political leaders,displays obedience to political power, or acts cowardly in relation to politicalinstitutions, is much more embarrassing, since there’s no [authoritarian] pressure.”And this speech helped me identify more clearly some of the goals of civil society,from the early 1990s: Civic activists were set to remove all pressure fromfundamental freedoms and the ability of Romanian citizens to actualize, andbenefit from, those freedoms—association, expression, and private initiative, atthe very least!Frustration with the old goals makes them still relevant today! Many Romanians215

Concern + trust = hopestill harbor the feeling that private initiative had been captured, since the earlydays of the 1990s, by exponents of the communist regime. They had connections,information, and managerial skills unavailable to the majority of the population,hence they’ve become the first “class” of Romanian entrepreneurs,regardless of whether legitimate or not. They have easily grasped the potentialbenefits of association in political parties, and are reported to have infiltratedthe ranks of all political movements. While consolidating their economic interestswith shallow politicallegitimacy, they havealso pursued freedom of Many Romanians still expression in effectivelyemasculating any and all harbor the feeling that efforts at promoting lustration.To me, this process private initiative had looks like a perfectlysound (albeit ruthless) bebeencaptured, sincehavior that takes advantageof a chaotic environ-ment, in order to pro-the early days of the1990s, by exponents ofmote individual prosperityat the cost of a placid,the communist regimenaïve and immature pub-lic. Of course, I hate thefact that we let it happen!At the same time, however,this brief account may bring about an explanation as to why civil societyis so obsessed with politics. Just as well, as, in understanding the need of those“illegitimate” entrepreneurs for economic prosperity and security, it becomescrystal clear why their front-end politicians actually achieved NATO and EU integration,as well as the transformation of the economy.Protracted ProblemsAs for civil society, per se, one can always look back, and try to learn from pastmistakes... Who knows? Maybe the following inventory of problems that affectedthe growth of Romanian civil society would help us take on the challenge,and redirect our efforts towards a new change, towards finally achieving thoseoriginal goals in the next decade. Let’s take a look, first of all, at association:Reportedly, tens of thousands of NGOs have been established during the 90’sbut less than 25% thereof appear operational, when consulting the balancesheets submitted to fiscal authorities. Then, if I were to report on the number ofeffective NGO’s that cater to the needs of issue-constituents or society at largeI’d say it’s little over 200. From this perspective, then, one may easily differentiatethe drives for association. On the one hand, the external drive appearsstrongest: many NGOs were established in order to make use of potential taxbreaks, to serve as cover for (marginally legal) commercial activities, to supportunderground political/electoral schemes. Indeed, most of them died out, inthe meanwhile. On the other hand, quite a number of NGO’s were establishedin order to take advantage of donor programs that injected sizable amountsof money into the Romanian economy. Many such “nonprofit entrepreneurs”withered away, being incapable of recognizing their links to a social segment,of focusing on serving the identified needs thereof, or simply of building a constituentsbase and of consolidating their value added in specific communities.Let’s assume the 200+ effective NGO’s truly mirror freedom of association in Romania—themajority thereof operates at local or regional level within Romania,catering to the needs of very specific social and/or professional groups, whilesome 20 NGOs are extremely visible at central level. These NGO’s, in turn, perusefreedom of expression to promote the views of their constituents, advancehot topics on the public agenda, contribute to shaping policies—indeed participatein governance, at all levels of government. Many politicians challenge216

Concern + trust = hopethem on grounds of representativity, often times missing the point that numbersof voters cannot compare to constitutional rights—while an MP may have anelectoral base of 50-100,000 voters, an NGO of “only” 5-50 members has anissue base of 20+ million right-bearers. Under these circumstances, courting apolitical leader that champions (for individual reasons) the cause of a particularNGO becomes an advocacy technique that should not be mistaken aslip-service, obedience or cowardice. Leaders and champions come and go,but the cause is there to stay! Indeed, to the naked eye, perceptions may bedeceiving, and some NGO’s may appear to have polarized the political inclinationsof civil society, to have softened the tone towards some institutions, tohave simply sold out to the highest bidder. But recent reforms in public management,decentralization, procurement, child protection, human trafficking,domestic violence, anti-corruption, justice, even elections, owe a great dealof gratitude to issue-based NGO’s that had set the agenda, formulated policyalternatives, influenced decisions and ensured proper implementation.What about private initiative, then, will you ask? A great number of these 200+NGOs had to diversify their fund-raising techniques, in order to consolidate theirbudgetary needs. Income-generating activities that bring about 25-30% of anNGO’s annual budget truly represent a breakthrough for the Romanian nonprofitsector. The financial stability of their core operations, based on perfectlyindependent activities, reinforce the NGO’s ability to pursue their mission andstrategic objectives, as well as their involvement in governance. More interesting,the income-generating services that these NGO’s perform actually caterLeaders andchampionscome and go,but the cause isthere to stay!to the needs of specific stakeholders, at the same time reinforcingtheir ability to gather relevant information, consolidatingtheir credibility and legitimacy, supporting their capacityfor effecting institutional change in relation to publicauthorities. Public support for such activities is growing, andNGO’s benefit both from public and private money, eithervia subsidies for servicing marginal groups, or via corporate social responsibilityprograms. Essentially, then, things are quite rosy for these 200+ NGO’s, and I cansense your perplexity as to where are the problems of the Romanian civil society,or why are the original goals still relevant, 20 years later? I just argued thatfundamental freedoms such as association, expression and private initiative aregoing quite well for a small number of NGO’s—the challenge is to understandwhy this proportion is so small, at less than 1% of the total number of registeredNGO’s?Challenges AheadTrust—social and/or public trust—is, probably, the greatest challenge for theRomanian civil society. Although opinion polls point to a constant increase ofthe public trust in NGO’s, civil society still lags far behind the church and thearmy. Social capital is extremely low in Romania, very few people being ableto trust their fellows with solving matters related to education in local schools,health-care in neighborhood hospitals, security in community police, garbagecollection and sewerage in residential areas, etc. Paternalism, as instilled bydecades of communist rule, and maintained by current politicians with vestedinterests, enforces an expectation that public administration is exclusively responsiblefor solving the problems. An attitude of learned helplessness in relationto public authorities—caused by, and/or entrenched with, a lack of responsibility—isquite pervasive at all levels of government. Thus, ordinary people217

Concern + trust = hopelook with caution, even suspicion, at the most active citizens and their “odd”NGO’s. As a consequence, very few people feel the drive to associate in orderto solve specific problems, and even fewer actually take the initiative toact upon that drive, get involved and express their opinion. Thus, the numberof “genuine” citizens, truly involved in public affairs, who choose to experiencetrusting one-another, delegating tasks and contributing their own resources, islow—not as low as President Constantinescu evoked in reference to communisttimes, but not large enough to form the critical mass needed to finally achievethe original goals of the early 1990s.Last, but not least, due to minimal numbers of people involved in civil society organizationsand activities, Romanian NGO’s face a different challenge, namelyelite fatigue. The lead-ership of the 20+ highlyvisible NGO’s active at Although opinion polls central level has notchanged a great deal point to a constant during the past 10 years.As long as leaders doincrease of the public trustnot change, ideas andin NGO’s, civil society stillobjectives are unlikelyto evolve—leaders, andlags far behind the churchorganizations alike, tendto become entrenchedand the army.in seemingly everlastingproblems, in rather dubiouscrusades, in one-size-fits-all solutions. In the absence of elite rotation, someNGO’s lose credibility, being easily dubbed as “one-man show-offs,” the publicgetting bored with the same figure, the same topics, the same vocabulary, thesame message. Of course, with little public trust and minimal involvement, there’sno room for NGO leaders to grow; in turn, without a selection base, current leaderssimply cannot be replaced with equally capable, versatile and articulatechallengers. Consequently, quite a few NGO’s face internal governance difficulties,especially when the leadership’s advocacy efforts appear to associate thepublic image of the organization with one of the political parties. The extremetensions on the political scene, especially in the eve of the November parliamentaryelections, with the three major political parties recruiting potential candidatesfrom all walks of life, currently place the most visible Romanian NGOs in astate of dire fragility. Whether, and how many, of these NGO’s will collapse afterthe next elections is a question that still awaits an answer—a cruel answer thatwill teach us all a lesson in leadership, trust, initiative, expression and association.Food for ThoughtNow I know why I don’t always feel comfortable within the ranks of Romaniancivil society—I think I managed to pinpoint, for me and for you, what might bewrong, where the inconsistencies lie. Of course, I share in the larger concernregarding the fragility of the Romanian NGO sector. I do not fully share PresidentConstantinescu’s opinions, but I am now more aware of the problems lyingahead, as well as of the causes. Many more of us will learn valuable lessonsfrom this retrospective, and will start working with the causes, in order to fixthe problems. Actually, I trust that many fellow activists from theNGO sector already share my views—I am quite sure we will meet,and start exploring solutions, if not for the entire NGO sector, atleast for the organizations where I am a member. When concernsmeet awareness, and trust joins the problem-solving effort, there ishope for the Romanian civil society—hope in the ability to finallyachieve the original goals of the early 1990s, as well as hope in thecapacity to identify new goals and formulate new missions! Goodluck, to all of us!As long asleadersdo notchange,ideas andobjectivesareunlikely toevolve218

Concern + trust = hopeCodru Vrabieis a trainer and consultantin the field of public administrationand public service reform from Romania. He has internationalexperience in non-profit and public management, administrative capacityand institution building, strategic development, fighting corruption andtransposing provisions of acquis communautaire. Besides the 6 years spentwith the Romanian Chapter of Transparency International, his work experienceincludes Access Info Europe of Madrid, Spain, the Romanian Instituteof Training, as well as the Center for Legal Resources of the Soros OpenNetwork in Romania. In addition to his native Romanian, he speaks fluentEnglish, understands French, converses in Bulgarian and has a smatteringof other European languages. Since July 2007, Codru is serving a 3-yearmandate as CSO representative on the National Integrity Council in Romania.From Oct. 2007—July 2008, he was an advisor to the Speaker of thelower House of the Romanian Parliament on public consultation processesrelated to the upcoming European agenda. His latest NGO project relatesto establishing a Bucharest-based think-do-tank regarding the implementationof European Union policies in/through Romanian public administration219

Notes on the Stateof Civil Society inCentral and EasternEuropeDarina Malova lists some inherentproblems of the CivilSociety today - generational,geographic and culturalgaps that are crucial to discussfurther in order to revitalizean existing gloomyoutlook on civic engagementin the CEE region.

Notes on the State of Civil Society in Central and Eastern EuropeThe post-communist discourse in the CEE region has been dominated bythe concept of ‘civil society’. On the one hand, the mass anti-communistmobilization and revolutions of 1989 are perceived as the victory of ‘true’and vibrant civil society, and on the other hand, a thesis on weak civil society inCEE has gradually became central to the discussion on the post-communist development.While the former opinions exaggerate the strength of civil societyin the late communism, the latter ones usually fail to prove relevant empiricalevidence because they compare all empirical indicators to the Western Europeancountries or to the US, or they compare the state of civil society in CEEto the ‘high’ normative ideal. These two opposite extreme points have beenframing most of considerations on the state and futureof civil society and have increased a number of relativistevaluations leading to endless debates on definitions andmeasurement of civil society.Given the cacophony of voices I feel encourage to presentmy highly subjective opinions based on my previousresearch, academic knowledge and personal observationon the state of civil society in the region referringmostly to non-governmental organizations, which appliedThe extraordinaryand impressivenumber ofregistered NGOsin CEE does notindicate thereal state of civilsociety.for support to CEE Trust. I look at a gloomy picture of civil society in CEE to uncoverits strengths and weaknesses that usually cause conflicting evaluationsand may shape the sustainability of civil society in the region.1.The extraordinary and impressive number of registered NGOs in CEEdoes not indicate the real state of civil society. A majority of these organizationsfunction as a ‘sleeping beauty’ because they are formal orthey do not have strong contacts with the broader population and often aremissing grass-roots activists.2.Mass participation in any kind of associations, not only NGOs is very low.The degree of activity and membership of civil society organizations isminimal and mainly this leads to the image of ‘weak’ civil society.3.The structure of civil society is unbalanced, there are different organizationalsectors that are isolated and do not cooperate. (a) Organizationsthat have successfully transformed after the collapse of thecommunism but they are still dependent on the state/governments. (b) Charitableand recreational organizations without public missions. (c) NGOs andthink-tanks that emerged thanks to the generous support of the US donors havebecome increasingly professional and often are viewed by the public as foreignimposed and privileged, therefore citizens do not tend to support themand participate in. Frequently, one can hear or read about ‘ngo-ism’ as a newideology in the region.4.There is a regional disparity especially related to NGOs and think-tanksthat are located in capitals and missing in other regions. The only exceptionsare environmental movements and their organizations remainedamong the most numerous, active and visible also on the regional andlocal level. The promotion of national and international networks among NGOsis also very important.221

Notes on the State of Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe5.There is a generational gap in the composition of civil society; manysuccessful NGOs and think-tanks have not prepared the second generationof activists. Moreover, youth organizations are missing from thepublic debates in the region. Either they are organizationally financially dependenton the state and/or individual institutional framework, such as Council ofYouth in Slovakia, or thissegment of society hasThere is a generationaleven more passive andgap in the compositionsubmissive attitudes thanthe older generation. of civil society; manysuccessful NGOs and6.The institutional think-tanks have not framework for truly independentcivil prepared the second society and particularlyNGOs is favor- generation of activists. able. It relates to legalenvironment, organiza- tional capacity, financialviability and infrastructure. In several countries there are no institutional andfinancial barriers for freedom of associations, laws on the tax assignment thatenable citizens and companies to support organizations directly, and there aremany legal channels for participation in decision-making, including acts onfree access to information, the right to participate in legislation-making processby submitting ‘a collective proposal’ to legislative drafts published on theInternet and the right to petition parliaments or local authorities. However thereare two limits for effective use of such channels. First, it is on the supply side, ascitizens do no tend to participate and apathy is increasing. Think-tanks andNGOs tried to mobilize the public in case of serious issues; however, effects ofthis mobilization differ. Second, on the demand side ‘political will’ is missing, aspoliticians tend to ignore public proposal and public deliberation has not yetbecame a norm.7.Professional, business and employers’ organizations and trade unionsare better organized and their capacity to participate in decisionmakingis higher due to special institutional framework according towhich drafts of legislation have to be submitted to selected groups defined byspecific, laws. Despite this privileged position the recent research indicates thatthese organizations, especially trade unions, do have less influence on policymaking than in the developed democracies.8.Cultural foundations for an emergence of a vibrant civil society sharingliberal democratic values are weak. (a) The communist legacy hasbeen constantly shaping patterns of behavior and therefore the mostcommon orientation is not to take part - as well as assuming risk - by participatingin public affairs. Public participation is still perceived as a risky enterprise.People tend to participate in organizations which are often financially dependenton the state – youth organizations, churches, labor unions. (b) EducationEspecially youngeris important; compare to the Western Europe or thegenerations are USA educational level is relatively low in CEE and thusincreasingly participation is also low. There are signs that especiallyyounger generations are increasingly involved ininvolved in ‘uncivil’organizations, i.e. ‘uncivil’ organizations, i.e. which do not share liberalwhich do not share democratic values, such as skinheads and rowdies. (c)liberal democratic A gap between the political elite and grass-roots hasvalues, such as been deepening. Politicians once elected do not acceptif media, NGOs and citizens try to make them ac-skinheads androwdies.countable and this in turn increases political apathy.222

Notes on the State of Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe9.Reorientation of NGOs and think-tanks to the domestic donors (biginternational companies) and European Union’s funding schemes willrequire a lot of additional fund-raising skills and effective lobbing. Bigbusinesses in CEE tend to establish their own foundations and assign their taxshare exclusively to this foundation and also ‘encourage’ own employees todonor their tax assignment to these foundations. EU funding has own, very particularpriorities and it is not likely that such activities as human right advocacyor watch-dog activities will be able to raise funding from these resources.Darina Malováis Professor of PoliticalScience at KomenskéhoUniversity, Bratislava. She has a Ph.D. from the Academy of Social Science inMoscow. Ms Malova has published many articles and contributed to severalbooks, mostly on post-accession Slovakia, Institution building in Central andEastern Europe and EU enlargement. Her recent publications include GoverningNew Democracies.223

Ferenc Miszlivetz, points out the current political crises asa chance to reconsider and reformulate the relationshipsbetween the Merchant, the Prince and the Citizen - and the“Trickster” the media. As new actors are needed can civilsociety deliver?Crisisaccumulationand signs ofrevitalization inHungary

Crisis accumulation and signs of revitalization in HungaryBack in 1990 Hungary was seen as the most promising country east of theElba. After the annus mirabilis of 1989, the countrywas expected to set an example to other formerSoviet satellites in transition throughout the region. Afternearly two decades, the question has been raised ofhow Hungarians managed to make such a mess of itall. Why did Hungarians fail to retain and capitalize onthe early advantage and positive evaluation that it initiallyenjoyed? Beyond Hungary’s borders – in Londonor Brussels, and in the new member states that Hungariansonce spoke patronizingly about such as Slovakia, Romania and even in theEU candidate of Croatia, the same question is being raised.The deterioration itself was neither sudden nor unexpected – there certainlywere and are people who sounded the alarm, but their voices were not strongenough. Their concern did not crystallize into a coherent critique or lead to awider social discourse which aimed to identify solutions. This is primarily a symptomof the weakness of civil society and democracy.Hungarian society and the political and economic classes, which now havea democratic mandate to lead the country, were largely, and still are, unpreparedfor deep European integration. Instead of trying to understand and utilizethe new opportunities opened up to their society and the Central Europeanregion as a whole, they carried on where the party state had left off. Regrettably,there were many areas where this proved possible. As a consequence,The idea of partnershipbetween the Prince,the Merchant and theCitizen has failed totouch the Hungarianpolitical and economicclasses to anysignificant depth. Therelationship betweenthe three major actorsis more imbalanced in2009 than it was 20-25years ago.After nearly twodecades, thequestion hasbeen raised ofhow Hungariansmanaged to makesuch a mess of it all.various disintegrated segments of Hungarian societystand helpless, baffled, increasingly frustratedand sometimes ashamed and angry when facedwith the jumbled mess of issues surrounding the robustprocesses of European integration, globalizationand social and economic transition.The only exception to this general frustration is asmall economic and financial elite, which hasshown no long term vision for the country’s futureprogress as a whole. They have clearly not evencome to appreciate how crucial, indeed, inevitable,it is to take social and political responsibility,even though this is becoming an ever moreinalienable part of the day-to-day activity of any self-respecting multi-nationalcompany. The idea of partnership between the Prince, the Merchant and theCitizen has failed to touch the Hungarian political and economic classes toany significant depth. The relationship between the three major actors is moreimbalanced in 2009 than it was 20-25 years ago.Democratic Deficit: The Citizen Loses AllIn any society where the rift between external, institutional forms of democracyand its inherent content is permanent and still growing, democracy is in crisis.This is the situation that faces Hungary today. An increasing number of Hungariancitizens think that the machinery of democratic institutions does not servetheir interests. Consequently they do not trust these institutions, or the politicians225

Crisis accumulation and signs of revitalization in Hungarywho directly operate and control them. In these conditions, they do not participate,nor wish to participate, in the debates and actions that take place in thepublic arena. An opinion widely held amongst Hungarians is that, apart from avery few exceptions, members of the political class are motivated by their owninterest in material gain and power. They do not believe that these politiciansaim to defend and enhance the public good or that they, the citizens, do haveenough power to influence them. A growing number of Hungarian citizens viewthe present form of democracy with fear, frustration or apathy, unable to identifywith it at all. They feel like they have been abandoned. This is a particularfear of freedom and continues into a fear of poverty, which we could call afreedom-poverty syndrome.The experience of freedom mingled with frustration and fear was not evenameliorated by EU accession in 2004. The de facto solidarity of the EuropeanUnion has diminished noticeably toward the former Eastern bloc countries. To agreat extent this was caused by the Big-Bang nature of enlargement. Beyondstriving to keep the costs of enlargement as low as possible, subjective factorssuch as the generally uneasy atmosphere of core European countries also createdan unfavorable context for deepening enlargement and worsened thechances of the process becoming an issue for wider societal concern. Even inthe mature democracies of Western Europe, the deterioration of the welfarestate and the prominence of the negative impacts of globalization, such asincreasing illegal immigration, fear of terrorism, etc., have caused an upsurge ininward-looking and xenophobic attitudes and a loss of interest in the ‘new democracies’.This means that only a few years after Eastern enlargement, a paradoxicalsituation has emerged - the rift between the East and West of Europe,which was expected to disappear both in a social and a social-psychologicalsense, seems to be widening.Dealing with deficitEven if the sense of accumulating loss is not conscious on a day-to-day basis, itlurks in a permanent sense of frustration, having a negative impact on the collectivesubconscious of society. Beyond the sense of being abandoned, Hungariansociety feels trapped. Society is frustrated by a self-destructive sense ofhelplessness, and aggression and apathy are only enhanced by the fact thatsociety sees no way out of the present situation in the near or distant future.Social cohesion and integrity is at an absolute low point in Hungary today. Themiddle-class is weak and powerless, this weakness has many other components,but two of them tower above all the others. As the gates of freedom open widerand the challenges of globalization and European integration shed light on thetruth, the lack of knowledge and competence appears more shocking thanever. This is also true of the lack of a sense of responsibility that should come outof a feeling of belonging to a community. In other words, besides a democraticdeficit, Hungary now also has to reckon with an intellectual and moral deficit.Failing to look in the mirrorBecause Hungarian society did not take a look in the mirror at the moment ofpolitical change, it has not had the experience of democracy and freedom associatedwith 1989. The old and new political powers did not deem it necessaryto lay the ethical foundations for a Third Hungarian Republic and for Hungarian226

Crisis accumulation and signs of revitalization in Hungarydemocracy. Hungarian society and, within that, the embryonic forms of a potentialcivil society had neither the strength, nor the experience, nor the cultureto force this to happen. Thus, the process which came to be termed the democratictransition was nothing more than the transfusion of the thought and behaviorpatterns of the past regime into the world of democratic institutions.If a society is unable to imagine that it can break out from a detrimental situation,it will never overcome that situation. For such a “vision” to come about,a society must be able to visualize itself as a political community. Without thisvision it cannot make a success of the res publica, the affairs of the public.Today the Hungarian Republic has become in many ways a formality, anempty shell, which owes more protection, legitimacy and content to the EU’sboundaries and institutions than to the sense of responsibility, commitment andmutual solidarity of its citizens. The worst absence is that of the common good,which in a dictatorship is declared from above, but after the dictatorship is overshould be re-formulated by democratic means.This is something that was lost in the fervor of theredistribution of power and wealth that continuestoday. Instead of building a common good,the common bad has been accumulating duringthe past three decades – something that everyonecan see and feel, smell and touch butwhich no one is willing to take upon themselves.In fact dismantling the public bad requires asmuch collective action and identification as theconstruction of the public good. The two are inseparable.If a society is unable toimagine that it can breakout from a detrimentalsituation, it will neverovercome that situation.For such a “vision” tocome about, a societymust be able to visualizeitself as a politicalcommunity.Hungary, similar to other countries in the region, is now in a danger zone, in aborderline position. As Elemér Hankiss put it, “Central and Eastern Europeansocieties have grown far too entangled with their own problems. Their shortsightednesscauses them to stay blind to the wider context” 1 . Amid the chaoticconditions of liminality, the pressure to create a new order may bring aboutthe disintegration of society and cause “distortion in its members’ mental structuresand patterns of behaviour.” 2 “The society in question may sink into suchprofound crisis that regeneration comes only after a long time and at the costof great difficulties, and only if the society is willing to undergo rejuvenation.’ 3Hungarian society may irrevocably lapse into insignificance and disintegrationunless the dangers are comprehensively recognized on a broad social scale.This needs to be followed by active programs, like the genuine renewal of institutions,of economic behavior, the behavior of political parties and civil societynetworks.The increasingly oligarchic nature of political parties has led to the emergenceof a hierarchic and impenetrable system of mutual political dependency whicheasily repels any external or internal criticism as well as any initiative aimed atpurification or renewal. The oligarchs themselves use the politically correct rhet-1 See Elemér Hankiss, “Transition and Liminality: Possible interpretations of the transformation processesin Eastern Europe,” €urozine, 2007 July 26, http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2007-07-26-hankiss-hu.html2 Ibid.3 Ibid227

Crisis accumulation and signs of revitalization in Hungaryoric of reform, dialogue and renewal that conforms to EU standards, so they arenot easy to contest on the level of simple everyday discourse. Nor do we seemuch determination to contest them either on behalf of the centralized or thecommercial media which has its own affiliations to respect.In the 21st century the central principles informing social organization and governanceare network and collateral organization, permanent flow, the integrationof a growing number of people in local, regional and supranationaldecision-making, of interdependence. It is impossible to break out of the presentsituation. Hungary needs to accept, understand and learn to apply theseprinciples in order to preserve and present its deepest culture, values and traditions.This may well be the heaviest price and the one which is most difficultto pay for the years that have been lost, for the ever-growing ineptitude andthe resulting tensions and failures. To break with the paternalistic, authoritariantraditions and short-sighted visions of Kádárism and other, earlier forms of feudalism,to stop the habit of placing short-term individual self-interest above allelse and protecting it to theinfinite, to break resistance tolong-term thinking in broad There is no perspectives (“what’s thepoint, we’re not the ones to chance for decide anyway”), to breakwith the culture of unreliabilastableity, pretension, miscommunication,false facades and deliberate suppression ofdemocracyunless it is builtachievement – these are alltasks that are waiting to befrom below.completed. Hungary won’tget far with the muddlingthrough mentality of “we’llsurvive this, too, somehow,like we survived everything else”. What it does lead to is the emergence of alasting divide within the EU between the centre and the periphery, to structuraldependence and subordination. This way Hungary may stake out its own longtermposition.The relationships between the Merchant, the Prince and the Citizen, as wellas of the “Trickster” 4 who stands between them – the media – also need to bereconsidered and reformulated. This is a challenge which urgently demandsanswers on all levels of governance, economic and social life. This must bedone within the framework of local communities, and on regional, Europeanand global levels.Nearly twenty years after the political turnabout, Hungary now needs a newsocial contract and must lay down the ethical, political, institutional and intellectualfoundations for its 21st century democracy. There is no chance for astable democracy unless it is built from below. It is, therefore, essential, thatprofound changes take place in the attitudes, consciousness and behavior ofsociety. Democracy needs debate, increased self-confidence and a thoroughconsideration given to common affairs. The forms, frames and means of democracyneed to be based on renewed and increasing social participation,many-sided discourse, and an open and constant search for consensus. Thisis a time-consuming process, particularly as the problems have accumulatedand been left untreated. After gaining conscious awareness, the process ofself-therapy can begin.4 For a theoretical elaboration of the relationshsip between the four big players, see the excellentdissertation by Jody Jensen, Globalizing Governance in a Multistakeholder World (Budapest: Corvinusuniversity, 2008).228

Crisis accumulation and signs of revitalization in HungaryHungary needs a new age of reform. Facing up to the facts and the resultingprocess of self-therapy may be aided by spontaneously organized forums orincreasingly rich networks of civil society, and enhanced opportunities for communication.Even so, the emergence of a new social consensus is a complicatedand difficult task that cannot take place without profound insight, tirelessefforts at alignment and a genuine openness to compromise.The strange revitalization of civil society2006 can be described as a demarcation line in the history of the state-civil societyrelationship in Hungary. After years of dependence, marginalization andbeing entrapped by political (left-right) polarization, subsequent waves of selfmobilizationstarted in 2006. This occurred after the re-election of the HungarianSocialist Party and the leaking of the prime minister’s “lie speech”. In thisspeech, the prime minister, who was also the party president at the time, acknowledgedin a rather vulgar and emotional speech at a closed party meeting,that they were re-elected with the help of lies about the economic andsocial state of the country.The deterioration of socialand political trust, thegrowing anomie, theunfruitful relationshipbetween a weak stateand a weak civil society,culminated in a sort ofgenuinely “original crisisaccumulation”After the leak, people started gathering spontaneouslyin front of Parliament demanding theresignation of the prime minister. In the absenceof a proper response, and also due to the lackof any dialogue, the spontaneous protests continuedand included the use of anti-Semitic andanti-globalization slogans. Some of the protestersused ancient Hungarian symbols, which hadbeen abused by the Nazis during WW II, suchas the flag of Árpád. The ruling left-liberal coalition,with the support of the vast majority of the media who focused on the rightwing radicals, reproduced the old dichotomy: the protesters were proto-fascistpopulists tacitly supported and encouraged by the right-wing parliamentaryopposition whose intention was to “bring politics to the streets.”The political crisis has deepened and enhanced the lack of trust in fundamentalinstitutions such as the Parliament, the police and in democratic institutionsgenerally. By 2008, the deterioration of social and political trust, the growinganomie, the unfruitful relationship between a weak state and a weak civil society,culminated in a sort of genuinely “original crisis accumulation”. The globalfinancial and economic crisis hit an already crisis-ridden and weakened country,adding new elements to the process of crisis accumulation. Surprisingly, theperiod of preparation and campaign for the European Parliament electionmotivated previously dormant elements of civil society. A second wave of selfmobilizationtook momentum: hitherto inactive or inward-looking local NGOsorganized themselves into civil roundtables, demanding more influence in localgovernmental decision-making; internet web-portals offered their assistance inconnecting the separated small civil society networks to each other, providingthe vision of a new “network society”, that is a network of networks. Set courageouslyagainst the manipulative official “wisdom” that there is no more spacein the political palette, so there is no chance for a new political movementto become a real political player, young people organized two new politicalgroupings: The Humanist Party and Politics can be Different (LMP- Lehet Mása Politika). These new democratic, liberal and pro-European movements are229

Crisis accumulation and signs of revitalization in Hungarythe signs of a healthy social immune system in the light of a robustly dynamicextreme right breakthrough.As a direct consequence of the lack of capacity and willingness of authoritiesto deal with the deepening problems such as poverty, unemployment and discriminationof a growing and more assertive Roma population, tensions amongthe Roma minority and non-Roma majority have grown into violence and evenmurder in the most under-developed parts of the countryside and in some ofthe larger cities in eastern Hungary. The Hungarian Guard found its legitimacyas a guarantor of security of non-Roma village inhabitants. Marching in uniformssimilar to Hungarian Nazis in WW II, they reinforce fearful images rather than socialreconciliation. Backed by the Hungarian Guard, Jobbik (“More Right”, or“The Better One”) launched an unexpectedly successful campaign and willhave 3 MEPs to the European Parliament; meanwhile the liberals (SzDSz) havecompletely fallen out. The most likely explanation for the breakthrough of theextreme right is that they are directly addressing the Roma issue. In other words,Jobbik is gaining votes from all of the other parties who were unable to addressa burning social and cultural problem, not because they are speaking aboutsolving it or handling it.The rapid, landslide changes in the political arena are not yet over. There is agrowing vacuum between the well-separated world of the political “elite” andthe rest of society. Whether new democratic groups can fill up this empty spacesupported by a dynamic civil society is an open question. Certainly, politics canbe different, and today the overwhelming majority of Hungarian citizens believethat it should be different. What proportions and democratic quality thesealternatives will take depends a lot on the networking – self-mobilizing capacityand organizational effectiveness of civil society. We will soon learn how muchdemocracy has matured in the two decades of uneven and imbalanced transition,and whether a new and healthy balance can be made between themajor players.Ferenc Miszlivetzis a director of the Institute forSocial and European Studies,and Jean Monnet Chair at the European Centre of Excellence, Dániel BerzsenyiCollege in Szombathely, western Hungary. He is a Scientific Adviserfor the Institute of Political Sciences at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.He holds a Ph.D. in Twentieth Century European History and a doctoratein International Relations from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.From 2001 to 2003 he was a member of the SSRC steering committee onGlobal Security and Cooperation research project. In 2000 he was principalinvestigator in the European cross-border research project “Preparity”–Structural Policy and Regional Planning Along the External EU Frontierto Central Europe: Preparing for Eastern Enlargement. He has lectured atmany European universities and institutions, including: the University of Bologna,Wissenschaftszentrum für Sozialwissenschaften (WZB) Berlin, ColumbiaUniversity, the University of Vienna, the University of Salzburg, Babes-Bolyai University and has been very involved in European Integration issuesthroughout his career. In 2005 he was awarded the Knight’s Cross of theHungarian Republic for international research and professional activity.230

Civil Society 2.0?Civic organizations post EU accession – theburn-out syndrome- A Very Subjective View -Ioana Avadani provides us with a list of issues, highlighting categorization of civilsociety in two groups, lack of internal and external support, common misconceptionsamong the public and internal organizational problems affecting the future.

Civil Society 2.0?A bit of casual historyThe “civil society” was quite an alien concept in the communist countries andit remained so for many years in the so called “transitional democracies”. Evennow, most Romanians associate the “civil society” with just a couple of NGOsand they tend to keep those accountable for what happens (or not) in termsof public reaction. Usually, powerful civil social actors – religious organizations,trade unions, etc. – are not perceived as being parts of the “civil society”. Othermechanisms, especially public participation, are more elusive, not being perceivedas being materially relevant for the society.The first NGOs that appearedin Romania after theThe first NGOs thatfall of the communism were dedicated either toappeared in Romaniademocratic values, or to re-lief administration. Thisafter the fall of thesituation somehow imprintedcommunism werethe whole evolution ofthe CSOs as organizations dedicated either that, until this day, areperceived as gathering in to democratic two main streams: thehuman rights advocates/de- values, or to relief fenders and the community-based,social needs administration. caterers, deliveringimmediate solutions to clearand present problems.The organizations catering for less obvious group interests – animal lovers, alternativecultural organizations – are not considered to be mainstream. While thenumbers multiplied (there are currently some 70,000 NGOs registered in Romania),just a couple of hundreds are really active – and with only a handful enjoyingsignificant public recognition and/or notoriety.From the recent history prospective, there are some differences between thetwo main types of NGOs. The HR advocates are perceived as being the “big”organization (in terms of annual turnover and amount of projects run rather thannumber of staff), visible, aggressive, connected with the centers of power. Theirapparition was stimulated (and in some cases, was helped) by internationalplayers and they preserved this connection with the international governmentaland non-governmental scene (including by being quoted in internationaldocuments). This support from abroad also functioned as an “import of credibility”.They are mainly national in their coverage and (mostly) Bucharest-based.Through their programs, they managed to impact public policies, legislationand affect the rules of the game at large, at societal level.The CSOs delivering social services are mostly small, local, community-based,less visible outside their constituencies and struggling for public recognition.Through the services they provide, they impact immediately and beneficiallythe life of their constituencies and beneficiaries. Of course, there are notableexceptions that are testing the rule, without infirming it.Given this unbalance in terms of visibility and public profile, some of the characteristicsof the “big organizations” have been projected, generally and uncritically,to the whole civil sector. Therefore, the “civil society” has played, in someperiods, the burden of being (perceived as) the real opposition of the country,in times when the political opposition was weak. Moreover, the “civil society” isperceived as being more of an “intellectual elite” rather than grass-root initiativesof concerned citizens, being build top-down, relying more on foreign aidthan on the contribution of their members/constituencies/local donors.232

Civil Society 2.0?There are also negative features associated with the “civil society”. Given tosome distorted political discourse meant to dwarf the criticism of the NGOs,they are labeled as “burning/eating/stealing foreign grants”. Their critics tendnot to take into consideration their contribution to the development of the societyor the specialization of the most serious organizations, focusing more on thecosts associated with their functioning. Accessing foreign money (especiallyEuropean funds) is sometimes perceived as something surreptitiously dangerousand malevolent. Unfinished and un-digested public debates on corruptionconsolidated the idea that the European funds are there only for the use of the“shrewd” and dishonest.Against this troubled and sometimes unfair background, the civil society facessome problems that may amount to a systemic crisis if not dealt with properly.Current challenges for the CSOsConstituency identity crisisWhile the CSOs delivering social services managed to clearly define their constituenciesand associate these constituencies as an element of their brand(as low-profile as it may be), the human rights organizations still lack such aclear definition in the public opinion. Their activities deal with rather fluid and“ethereal” notions such as freedom, respect for civil liberties, accountability,democratization – but these are not strong social values. People either do notcare for them, or consider that they are/should be embedded in their lives,given as such, once the country “graduated” the democratic test and joinedthe European Union. Constituencies as broad as the entire society are hardto monitor, hard to evaluate in terms of impact (especially when measurableindicators are expected). Concepts and ideas to which little or no social valueis attached – such as the human rights matters, especially those dealing withminority rights – are difficult to advocate for. The CSOs involved in this field havethe difficult task to fight the authorities for an enabling environment for the exerciseof such rights, while “forcing those rights down the throat” of inexperienced,unaware and rather amorphous targeted audiences. Paradoxicallyenough, the EU accession made the work of such organizationsmore complicated, as both the external pressureand the internal expectancy decreased. Given this lowlevel of social implication and valorization, the very legitimacyof such organizations is at stake.Constituencies asbroad as the entiresociety are hardto monitor, hard toevaluate in termsof impactNo internal support for the civil sector through CSRThe “democratic graduation” came with the expectable and foreseen exit ofthe main international donors, who have provided the main resources for theCSOs. In theory, their place should have been filled up by the increasing localresources, mainly coming from responsible governments or concerned businesses,via their corporate social responsibility programs. The experience of thelast years demonstrated that CSR is just a budding concept – often misunderstood,misused and abused by the business sector. One time too often, the CSRprograms are used as PR or advertising opportunities by the companies. Theysupport CSOs social programs, but ask the recipients to make sure they get thedeserved visibility, through contracts that resemble more to advertising clauses.Even a quick analysis of the agendas of the most CSR programs indicates aheavy “social agenda” – most of the companies’ priorities are associated with233

Civil Society 2.0?poverty reduction, children, education, environment and, sometimes, healthand domestic violence. None of the CSR programs includes democracy, participation,transparency or accountability. This prompts us to believe that theCSR programs are just an expression of the “emotional vampirism” present quitefrequently in other sectors of the society (media, populist politicalmeasures, etc), a conduct building on people’s sympathyand emotions rather than on clearly identified needs andpriorities.No external support for CSOsRomania’s accession into EU put the local CSOs in a ratherawkward position, as they found themselves competing forsupport on a larger and more diverse market. Nobody denies the value of competition,as long as it is fair. But in this “project funds field”, the battle is not at allequal, as local CSOs have to compete not only with larger but similar organizationsin Europe, but with companies specialized in project management, withsignificantly larger turnouts and access to resources. As the accent, in most ofthe public bids, is put mainly on the management capacity – rather than on theactual content expertise, the local CSOs find themselves in junior positions (justdelivering experts for the international consortia) or downright at the losing endof the process. While most of the local CSOs developed “survival strategies”,setting up alliances and partnerships with larger foreign organizations, the issueof their secondary importance in such programs persists.The burn-out syndromeMany civil society activists feel today the need to reassess their positions andto evaluate their priorities. Given the vast expertise they accumulated and thediverse and multiple contacts they socially established, as well as their managementskills, they are highly appreciated on the consultancy market. Therefore,a significant number of CSO people took the leap into the business field,“depopulating” the civil sector. Such an attitude is perfectly understandableand justifiable – especially given the financial benefits. The question of CSOs ishow to keep such good, qualified, experienced people, as well as how to attract“new blood” into the sector. It appears that the initial enthusiasm for thenon-profit sector wore off, as the new generations seem to be more pragmatic,more career-driven and more competitive.The organizational scarcityThis aspect is closely related to the previous one. Most CSOs are built conservatively,from the point of view of the human resources, as most of them are project-basedfunded. Therefore, there is little margin for steady, consistent growthinside these organizations. They cannot offer a predictably climbing (and attractive)career-path (promotions, etc) to young, ambitious professionals. MostRomanian CSOs are too small to grow from the inside, while it is very difficultfor them to grow institutionally. Moreover, for most CSOs, their identity is strictlyrelated (sometimes even overlapping) with the one of their leaders. While thishelps the visibility, it weakens, on a long term, the institutional construction ofthose organizations, turning them in the public’s eye, into “personal projects”,rather than in entities with mission, goals and strategies.Ioana Avadaniis the executive director ofthe Center for IndependentJournalism in Bucharest. She has experience of some 15 years in the media field,having worked as a news agency editor, a TV editor and as a media developer andis dedicated to a freer media and real citizens’ voices being heard.234Many civilsociety activistsfeel the needto reassess theirpositions andevaluate theirpriorities.

Istvan Rev suggests that we have to reexamine some of our assumptions about engagementand to ensure more open societies in the future, make the effort to bridge growing gaps byopening our eyes for the ways of the young.

In case the Communist systems had collapsed forty years ago, in 1968, it wouldhave been extremely difficult to reach an agreement at the roundtables. Thepotential participants at that time would have come with incommensurableviews, radical, experimental, utopian ideas about self-governance, common(as opposed to private and state) property, support to the second economy,reconfigured peasant communities, influenced by the idea that in order to bea realist one should demand nothing less than the unimaginable. That was thetime of the new left, anthropological romanticism, national liberation, radicalcritical thinking, when young people, especially, but not exclusively students,played a central role in theformation of national andinternational public dis- By 1989, the course. Fortunately, twentyyears later, at the time democratic when Communism in factcollapsed, the ideologicaloppositions hadlandscape looked completelydifferent: those wholooked around, saw an ide-already given uptheir longing forological wasteland, therewas nothing on the horizon,autochthonous,except the fantasy abouthuman-facedpossibility of the imminent“end of history”, well-tried, solutions, and uninspiring practices, the institutionsof seemingly well- settled on the functioning market systemsand parliamentary democ- attainable. racies, power exercised bythe elected, seemingly en- lightened political elites,instead of Vaclav Havel’s naïve post-political, post-parliamentary, post-consumeristutopia of the “power to the people” in his “Power of the Powerless”.By 1989, the democratic oppositions had already given up their longing for autochthonous,human-faced solutions, and settled on the attainable. The lack ofreal radical alternatives left no choice but to import, take over practices, institutions,ideas from the West, and this ideologically uninteresting moment madeit possible to reach quick agreements at the roundtables; there were no realinspiring discussions, although the moment was unprecedented in the sensethat something truly new, previously unheard of could have been built on theruins of the collapsed structure. Fortunately that did not happen, and the formerCommunist world did not become once more the experimental ground oflarge-scale untried and extremely dangerous social experiments. The countriesjoined the “Partnership for Peace”, NATO, WTO, the World bank, IMF, the EuropeanUnion, became almost normalized in a somewhat perverted way: mixingroutines, practices, reflexes of the one-party-state with ideas and structures ofmarket economy, liberal parliamentary democracy and anachronistic, conservativeambitions of the imagined past.Left leaning ideas and utopias became compromised during the decades ofstate-socialism, so for young people who were born or socialized after the Collapse,the almost only remaining option nowadays, in search of radical utopias,are mostly radical right-wing ideas and movements, inherited from anThe only remainingoption nowadays,in search of radicalutopias, are mostlyradical right-wingideas and movements,inherited from animagined, unrealpast improperlyunderstood.imagined, unreal past improperly understood. Thebreak around 1989/1991 immediately turned the recentpast into an alien world; it did not seem to bethe prehistory of the present but a different country,the elements of which could be resurrected at will. Itbecame almost impossible to find a reasonable, intelligentway back to the past; history was lost oncemore, after it had been lost several times during thenineteenth and twentieth centuries’, most dramaticallyafter the World Wars. There was no time, no op-236

portunity to face history either on the national, regional, European or globallevel, to make use anything one – in principle – could have learned in a seriousresponsible way from the past. This situation makes rational discourse aboutimportant social issues extremely difficult.Young people, born around and after the Collapse live in a different worldthan their older contemporaries: according to studies conducted both in theEast and West, young people are nowadays influenced much more by theirpeers than by their parents or teachers; they live in their own world saturated byinformation of their own choice, conversing mostly with members of their agegroup,influenced by limited and highly selective websites, seduced by focusedand targeted advertisement campaigns. Members of older generations do noteven know much about the world of the younger people, since they do notsee the magazines, publications, entertainment younger people consume inthe solitude in front of their computer screen. The magazines at the newspaperkiosks that are visible for passersby do not tell much about the consumptionhabits, interests of these younger generations, since they consume news andinformation increasingly on-line.Schools, traditional institutions and meeting places become more and moreoutdated, obsolete; teachers are lost, force the young people to go off-line,and what they can offer seem more and more useless, uninteresting. Thesedevelopments lead to the breakdown of meaningful communication betweenmembers of different generations. These trends do not necessarily lead to socialanomie; people find real and virtual communities among their peers, mostly butnot exclusively on-line; new types of networks are formed; new ways of communicationand collaboration are being born; new methods of learning are discoveredand introduced. A few decades ago the early adopters of new technologieswere customarily people between 30-50 years of age, nowadays theearliest adopters are mostly young people between 12-25. Under these newconditions the traditional meaning of the “political” and the “social” becomeundermined and useless, and in order to become contemporaries of ourselves,we should accept the fact that the familiar terms, settings and structures shouldbe critically and creatively reexamined.After 1989, we live in a world where the borderlines between macro-and microinterventionsbecame fuzzy. Technology that isemerging since the end Information, in of Communism makes itpossible for local actors to this new media intervene in macro issues.Today it is possible to or- landscape is usually ganize without an organization;to form a movedecontextualized,ment without joining aunstructured,movement; to act politi-cally without belonginguninterpreted, andto a political organization.This is a novel situationaggravate to afor all those actors whogrowing generalwould like to support, influence,and gently direct experience of life the civic sphere. One ofthe characteristics of the without fixed context. new situation is the factthat movements do notorganize in familiar andvisible ways, there is no or less hierarchy; cooperation is decentralized, thereare tacit, mostly unstated rules. What motivates people in taking part in collaborativeactions are elusive social clues, people are widely distributed bothphysically and socially, and meet regularly in the virtual place. The news theyconsume are both extremely global, but at the same time local as well: young237

people live mostly in their own immediate circles, but consume global news almostreal time. Information, in this new media landscape is usually decontextualized,unstructured, uninterpreted, and aggravate to a growing general experienceof life without fixed context. The new movements emerge by themselves,rather than being organized from top down by traditional organizers. Peopleshould feel that they are able to self-identify with the aims and ideas of theprojects they take part in. What would just seem to be a way or infrastructure ofcommunication, are in fact tools of “emergence”, self-organizing means, waysof collaboration, cooperation, voluntarism, activism. Young people are sensitiveto political and social issues, but the repertoire of these issues differ fromtraditional concerns (access to information, access to knowledge in general,self-determination, autonomy, individual liberties, human rights in a wide sense,the right and opportunity to move – physically and virtually – right to relevance,etc.) Since they are able to organize themselves instantly without prior preparationor without any formal organization, there is an important element of unpredictabilityand unforeseen character of their actions in concert.For philanthropicorganizations,international NGOs,instead of supportingof well-definablemovements intraditional ways, itseems wiser to supportissues, explorations ofproblems, individualswith unique ideasFor philanthropic organizations, international NGOs,instead of supporting of well-definable movementsin traditional ways, it seems wiser to support issues, explorationsof problems, individuals with unique ideas,who can act as “hubs”, helping to create real andvirtual space for decent new ideas, help changingthe character of traditional ways of education andinstruction, to help change the relationship betweenteachers and students, support rational and relevantpublic discussions in novel ways about important social,cultural issues, to recognize that the borderlinebetween the social and the cultural is changing ina dramatic way. It is important to help to gain access to public information,to make information about crucial public issues available, in order to makestate and local officials accountable in decentralized, non-political ways. It iscrucially important to help launching relevant, important, even very small-sizeprojects. Although it may sound paradoxical, the attitude, motivation, and beliefsof people, especially young people, are formed by as a consequence oftheir choices and actions, and not vice versa, despite the received wisdom oftraditional pedagogy and economic theory. “It is our actions” – stated Aristotle– “that determine our dispositions”. We do and chose certain things, not becausewe have certain ingrained predisposition, but because of our repeatedactions that teach us how to choose, what to think, what attitudes we shouldembrace.What seems to be the sphere of technology is in fact not just technology butthe eminent sphere of the social. Technical devices are as much part of political,social, and moral life as social practices, laws and regulations. Technologyenables people to contribute to the production or shaping of public goods innew ways. Our world is shaped not only by ideologies, beliefs, narratives but bythe ways technology is used for the common good. It is possible to shape theways how technologies (in the widest sense of the term), cooperation, collaborationare used in positive ways that contribute both to the well-being of theindividual and the community at large.238

Isván Révstudied at Eötvös Loránd and YorkUniversities. He has worked on theeconomic history of the post-World War II period, and his narrower fieldof research is historical anthropology. He has been actively involved inecological issues and published numerous articles criticizing the environmentaldamage caused by centralized economic planning. Mr Revhas been a visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley, afellow of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and a researchfellow at the Getty Center in Los Angeles. He was a founding memberof the “Danube Circle”, a past winner of the Right for Livelihoodaward (the alternative Nobel Prize) of the Swedish Parliament and in1995 he was the recipient of the New Europe Prize. Mr Rev was one ofthe founding editors of The Budapest Review of Books, he is a professorin the CEU History and Political Science departments, the director of theOpen Society Archives and the chair of the Open Society Institute (OSI)-Information Sub-Board, member of the OSI Board of Directors. His mostrecent work is the Retroactive Justice - Prehistory of Post-Communism(Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 2005).239

The current quandariesof NGOs in Central andEastern EuropeInternational funding and steering has created unrootedCSOs in CEE and with little contact with grassroots,increasingly dependent on EU funds designedfar away from reality, Jiri Kopal is arguing thatcivil society is incapable taking a lead in society

The current quandaries of NGOs in Central and Eastern EuropeIn the last two decades, freedom in both the private and public spheres hasgrown in Central and Eastern Europe at an unprecedented rate 1 . The developmentof civil society has been due, in large measure, to the extraordinarylevel of aid – idealistic if not always far-sighted – given to non-traditional organizationsin the region such as watchdogs, think tanks and advocacy groups.The most generous grants came largely from foundations in the United States,with smaller contributions from the British, Canadian and Dutch embassies orprograms supported by their ministries of foreign affairs. In contrast, in much ofcontinental Europe, from Germany and Finland in the north to Portugal andGreece in the south, there is no strong tradition of supporting watchdog or advocacyorganizations that are independent of government and political partiesand their foundations and funds.In awarding grants, foundations and embassies wanted to bring about changein various areas of these previously hermeticallysealed societies, withMany NGOs face atheir many hundredsof thousands of former very difficult challenge communist party membersand secret police in finding ways to agents, whose integrityhad been irrevocably replace the idealism damaged. An importantaim was to create stron- and financial support ger roots for the rule oflaw, a system of natural provided by US and practical principlesenshrined in law and foundations and some enforceable by law. Inrecent decades, contin- European governments uously-evolving systemsof this kind have helped with funding from Western societies toachieve both commersourcesin Central andcial success and dignityEastern Europefor ordinary citizens. In post-communist societies,however, despite what could be termed‘small revolutions’ between 1989 and 1991, the very concept of ‘change’ remainstraumatic for most people, who prefer to cling to traditional practiceswithin their political and professional circles. Many of them cannot bring themselvesto countenance the adoption of good practice from other countriesthat will lead to the stricter observance and protection of the rule of law in theirown.Consequently, many NGOs face a very difficult challenge in finding ways toreplace the idealism and financial support provided by US foundations andsome European governments with funding from sources in Central and EasternEurope, given that their societies and citizens do not yet have a tradition ofcharitable giving 2 and do not have many counterparts among the older EUmembers in the West as models for inspiration.Here I would like to present some potentially controversial arguments that Ihope will encourage further critical reflection and a lively debate on the developmentof civil society, or at least those parts of it involved in governance andthe rule of law.1 While in Britain, France and Germany, anti-terror measures after 11/9 began to interfere with theright to privacy more or less immediately and were combined with the increase of Big Brother technologies,these developments only started to have an effect in Central and Eastern Europe some3-4 years ago, as can be seen from government approval of dangerous policies and legislation.2 With the exception of ad hoc humanitarian crises such as earthquakes, floods, tsunami and thelike, or even on occasion aid to children in orphanages or the homeless.241

The current quandaries of NGOs in Central and Eastern EuropeProfessional NGOs, but to some extent artificially createdAre full-time, fully paid up employees of NGOs part of civil society, or are theysimply ascending another kind of career ladder? Some dissidents from thecommunist era have been embittered on seeing that the kind of work that theydid previously on a voluntary basis has been remunerated for the last fifteento nineteen years by foundations that come to the region only on conditionthat the grantees can communicate with them in English. As many of theseNGOs also prioritize and promote interests held by sometimes unpopular minorities– here I could mention the conditions in different places of detention (suchas prisons, orphanages, psychiatric hospitals, care homes or asylum centers),the Roma community, the mentally disabled or the influence of transnationalcorporations – these organizations are sometimes regarded as somehow unnatural,at least until there is a visible or overwhelming problem that needs to besolved. It is also very common in these societies to feel that politicians and thestate or regional authorities should be responsible for preventing and solvingany and all problems or tensions.Now consider those international NGOBoard members who come from variousEnglish-speaking countries to Central andEastern Europe for quarterly meetings withno actual constituencies in the very countriesthey criticize for trampling on minorityrights or endangering the environment.Are they pursuing their own agendas, orWouldn’t calls for change bemore successful in the longterm if they were based onrelationships of trust and activeinvolvement with people andinstitutions at the grassrootslevel, rather than externalcriticism?providing a career for permanent or temporary international travelers? DoNGOs of this kind contribute to civil society? They often lack any counterpart oractive ally at a local or national level, and it is therefore difficult to see how theirpolicies can benefit specific individuals in practice nowadays. How do othersat a national level regard their role? Shouldn’t we question the legitimacy andvalidity of their arguments for change in practices that they criticize at a locallevel? Wouldn’t calls for change be more successful in the long term if theywere based on relationships of trust and active involvement with people andinstitutions at the grassroots level, rather than external criticism?When public interest NGOs in Central and Eastern Europe collaborate, theyagree to focus on only a few major issues at any one time, since the problemsto be addressed are so vast. The authorities have a great deal of power but arealso largely indifferent, while corporations violate workers’ rights and pollutethe environment on a regular basis. The NGOs find that it is not realistic to relyon people who do voluntary work in the evenings but have full-time jobs duringthe day. Whereas Western European civil societies depend to some extent onpart-time volunteers, in Central and Eastern Europe volunteers (except for universitystudents) are overwhelmed by the work to be done and their achievementsare usually limited to public announcements and one or two events orround-table discussions. As a result, a ‘volunteers-only’ mode of operation withoutprofessional administrative back-up does not constitute a driving force capableof bringing about societal change. Without long-term financial support,NGOs are unable to create stable independent institutions or trusted think tanksthat can advocate and press for legislative changes or pursue cases that havelanguished in court for years. Western European societies tend to respect therule of law as a consequence of discussing and solving problems more gradu-242

The current quandaries of NGOs in Central and Eastern Europeally and naturally, over a long period of time. Societies in Central and EasternEurope, however, don’t only have to overcome the legacy of paternalism anddraw closer to the Western European model, but also face the same new challengesas other parts of Europe and the world.Civil society, without Civil society, without leadership from lawyers, economists,academics and the like, tends to matureleadership fromlawyers, economists, only in the wake of tragic or emotional events. Suchacademics and the events may help launch successful careers on an individualbasis, for example in politics, which can oc-like, tends to matureonly in the wake of casionally have a positive effect. At the same time,tragic or emotional catastrophic situations make it far more difficult toevents.construct stable civil institutions that are committedto achieving long-term goals regarding the rule oflaw and are able to remain independent from the centers of power.If the professional NGOs were able to persuade at least some sections of thelocal population that their goals would benefit society, members of the publicmight be willing to contribute a small percentage of their salaries or commercialincome to support them, thus replacing foreign sources 3 . Between threeand six NGOs in each country of the region, some of them with an internationalhumanitarian focus, did stage public campaigns that were featured in the mediaand generated a certain amount of public support. But a handful of NGOsdo not create a civil society. If the majority of professional NGOs, many of themdefending the interest of marginalized groups, were unable to persuade thepublic that they deserve their backing, do they lack legitimacy? Are they incapableof doing anything more than managing a few EU projects, while sometimesconcealing their true goals from the eyes of an indifferent and unwieldyEU bureaucracy 4 at the same time? Do these NGOs deserve to survive or not? Ipersonally have always thought not, as it is unfair to expect that external sourceswill always support such national NGOs on a permanent basis. Societies getwhat they deserve, both with regard to politics and civil society. But is this nottoo harsh a judgment in a globalised world, where in some places people needthe support of those with similar values and a similar style of working basedelsewhere to implement goals that increasingly frequently go beyond nationalboundaries?What should be done when, after almost twenty years of unprecedented levelsof international philanthropy, the next stage of development could easily see3 Attempts to replace foreign sources of funding with corporate charity have proved unrealisticbecause businesses in the region tend to be small with very limited and strict project criteria lackingthe wherewithal to fund even a single salaried member of staff in an NGO for a year, and oftenproviding no financial support at all. Moreover, charity from the business sector is at best only a partialsolution, since entrepreneurs starting up new businesses usually have enough trouble drawing asalary themselves, let alone generating enough profit to fund an NGO. In addition, there are thenfewer capable people available to work on public interest protection, as the best of them have totake part in activities that compete for profit.4 I cannot imagine anything as far-removed from the citizen as this otherwise quite useful formationof European states. Have ‘leaders’ ever in the history of mankind previously attempted tosubmit something as unreadable as the Lisbon Treaty (a refrigerator service manual would be morecomprehensible) to the public for a referendum – even if in order to achieve very important andnecessary outcomes for the ordinary citizens of the EU? How can such officials understand whatis required to develop and support civil society at a national let alone a local level? Only with thehelp of national governments and their authorities which are very often blighted by conflicts ofinterest, corruption and passive resistance to reform of the rule of law and law-enforcement?243

The current quandaries of NGOs in Central and Eastern Europematters of public interest falling increasingly under the influence of the state 5and four to six political parties (as well as their foundations and think tanks), withthe input of civic volunteers in last place? How strategic and far-sighted willthose idealistic philanthropists feel when they see their legacy vanishing in thisway? What actually is their legacy? Do they have any idea?What disadvantages should be considered in connectionwith the inevitable growth of the information society (sincethe advantages are more or less clear, and will not provokecritical discussion)? IT development cannot replaceface to face communication between people. Meetingsand discussions among NGOs are particularly useful forsharing knowledge, information, experience and insights.However, NGO personnel in Central and Eastern Europehave met only very rarely in the last three or four years, especially when comparedwith previous years. NGO members in Western Europe meet a little moreregularly, often paying their own travel and hotel expenses. 6 NGOs in Centraland Eastern Europe, on the other hand, are unable to bear the cost of traveland accommodation, and invariably need project support.There is a lack of key contacts in NGOs in this region who are able to communicateon the international arena. The very few ‘focal people’ in any particularNGO are generally overwhelmed by the volume of international e-mail communication,as they will be working simultaneously on specific national projectsat the same time. As a result, many contacts never get a chance to develop,also because of the impossibility of even succeeding in arranging to meet.23-27 year-oldswithout any previouswork experience,particularly in anNGO – have beentrained under EUguidelines to use onlyformalistic criteriaMany web pagesare never visitedand are of littleuse to anyonewhen a projectends after 1 or 2years.Many web pages are never visited and are of little use to anyone when a projectends after one or two years. The sites are not sufficientlyinteractive and NGOs do not have enoughmoney to pay administrators who can coordinatediscussions on 2.0 web profiles every day. Althoughsome volunteers have the ability to craft such webpages and blogs successfully, they seldom participatein key matters such as legislative proposals,impact litigation, long-term advocacy strategies orpractical advice on lobbying politicians. They simplyspend most of their free time on the internet, replacing‘pub discussions’ with ‘internet discussions’. They do not have a place wherethey can meet regularly and lack the energy and strategies for improving theissues about which theyhave been complaining. The solution has to be closer association with more5 These societies also successfully functioned for a long time in the western part of continental Europe,established chiefly because of the fear of socialist promises from the Soviet bloc after WorldWar II, with the tremendous expansion of the welfare state, predominantly in the seventies. Thereare of course many advantages and disadvantages to these developments in comparison withthe former communist bloc countries that have now become EU members, which will have to bedebated in the future.6 Members of NGOs in the West typically have higher salaries than those in Central and Eastern Europe,which come from different sources (for example university posts or independent jobs in fieldsother than their volunteer involvement in NGOs). Some – especially in the Netherlands – work onlyfour days a week and therefore have more time for civil activities. NGO volunteers in the West arealso more likely to be more idealistic about their work.244

The current quandaries of NGOs in Central and Eastern Europeprofessional organizations. Problems can occur if these people prove to be individualisticand uninterested in being part of a wider movement or structuresmanaged on a different basis from their blogs and forums.EU project policiesProblems abound when EU grant policies are managed at the local level, quiteapart from the well-known problems concerning the unbelievable length oftime it takes to administer grants and calls for proposals directly in ‘Space ShuttleBrussels’ 7 . All too often, the EU’s bureaucratic software malfunctions, andNGOs often confront complicated IT systems that fail before a proposal is completed.Here again, IT development can play a rather negative role.In addition, although EU forms can readily accept quantitative criteria, they failto provide for the entry of qualitative data, particularly those that address humanrights and other issues of public interest. At the end of the project, administratorsand evaluators – 23-27 year-olds without any previous work experience,particularly in an NGO – have been trained under EU guidelines to use only formalisticcriteria. This has become humiliating for some NGOs, and many organizationheads refuse to tol-erate this approach. SomeA lot ofof them have already leftfor the private sector (moremoney hasor less abandoning publicinterest activities) and theirbeen wasted,potential and abilities will bewhich is notdifficult to replace. Clearly,the EU’s technocratic evalu- unusual during ation system will not find supportersamong the new EU transitional states, including civil societyleaders. On the other hand, periods. it is true that there havebeen problems with trans-parency and accountabilityin the civil society sector, sothese complicated systemshave been developed partly to counteract fraud. Therefore one could argueagain that civil society in the EU has got what it deserves.National and local NGOs from Central and Eastern Europe are currently not ina position to maintain a presence in Brussels and are consequently unable topromote their ideas and interests or influence policy there. Nor can they expoundon concerns, for example, about the invasion of privacy threatened bythe current EU antiterrorist and data retention policies. This is easier for the fewinternational organizations with real clout; but these often have little real contactor involvement at a local level. Such NGOs are also better placed to enlistthe support of EU bureaucrats for their international projects, many of which areentirely impractical. Those that focus on different forms of discrimination haveparticularly lacked any positive effect at local level.Partial conclusionsOver the past twenty years, some modest accomplishments have graduallyhelped to improve respect for the rule of law and public interest protection.However, a lot of money has been wasted, which is not unusual during transitionalperiods. This has also led to failures in building strong institutions thatdevelop from the grass roots. Some projects have been tarnished by fraud andmismanagement, and these grave failures have generally not been discussed7 Oldag, A., Tillack, H. M. Raumschiff Brüssel: Wie die Demokratie in Europa scheitert. Argon Verlag,Germany, 2003, 320 p.245

The current quandaries of NGOs in Central and Eastern Europeopenly in order to save face for the funder and the grantee. So these shortcomingsin civil society management have been cloaked in silence.The response to such cover-ups and the disappearance of US-based foundationsand some ministries of foreign affairs programs from the scene should notbe merely to replace them with EU projects which again would be tied to alarge institution and a particular form of money management, as this tends tosmother rather than support the development of a self-confident civil society.EU policies are anything but progressive when it comes to the developmentof the rule of law that at the same time takes into account the interests of civilsociety at the local level.If we really intend to build a genuine civil society both within individual countriesand between them throughout this region, support should come from thegrass roots on the basis of direct dialog with ordinary citizens and from newlyestablished foundations (if there are any donors generous enough) in the comingyears. But those in the wealthier sections of Central and Eastern Europeansociety are hardly likely to support NGOs that continue to protect the interestsof poor, marginalized or unpopular groups. In their view, the state should beresponsible for supporting these people, or at least larger organizations (even iftheir remit is wider than merely providing social services instead of the state) asit did during the socialist era or as is the case in a slightly different form in Austria,Germany or Scandinavia. Some NGOs, compelled by financial concerns,will start or continue to work on issues that are ‘sexier’; others will only carry outstate policies (as the state helps to distribute EU money) and some will cease toexist at all. In this latter case, public interest issues will go undefended, and otherproposed changes will fall by the wayside due to lack of support.Jirí Kopalis chair of League of Human Rights (LIGA), Brno, Czech Republic,which he initiated in 2002, and Deputy SecretaryGeneral (for Europe), International Federation for Human Rights(FIDH), Paris, France. He earned his law degree from Masaryk Universityin Brno and spent a semester studying and carrying out researchat the University of Basel, Switzerland, at the Max Planck InternationalPublic Law Institute, Heidelberg, Germany and in the Center forthe Study of Human Rights, Columbia University, New York, USA. Jirístarted his public interest activities in 1999 as a volunteer for the EnvironmentalLaw Service. Since 2002, he has been a member of twocommittees of the Czech Government’s Council for Human Rights.He was appointed Deputy Secretary General of the InternationalFederation for Human Rights (FIDH)in 2007.246

From democracy to kleptocracyand back?The unfinished business ofdemocracy in CEEWhat happened with the mobilizing power? Juraj Mesikis disappointed 10 years after the Slovak civil societycampaign of 1998 and warns for the serious politicalproblems and concerns that are left unanswered.

From democracy to kleptocracy and back?In the dark days of December 2008, sitting in this corrupt country, it may seemstrange, or perhaps even inappropriate, to start my review of the past 20years by reminiscing about the glorious days of civil society in Slovakia in 1998.This era marked a halfway point between “then“ and now. Without the surge incivil society activity in 1998, Slovakia and, to a certain extent, the whole of eastcentral Europe would look very different ten years on.Although we are unlikely to ever have sufficient scientific data to prove thatunequivocally, based on the data we do have, we can argue that civil societyplayed a critically important role in what became one of the major successstories of post-communist transition in Europe. The authoritarian regime wasoverthrown and Slovakia was put on a trajectory towards full EU and NATOmembership.To fully understand the situation today and speculate on the future, we needto start in 1998 - the high water mark of civil society in Slovakia. The third sector,which was a key element of active citizenry in Slovakia in 1998, had quitespecific features. Dušan Ondrušek, a prominent Slovak NGO leader, describedit in terms of a deformed human body (“a homunculus”). While it had a bighead and muscular arms, its body and legs were small and weak. What fromtoday’s perspective appears to be a structural problem, was a more or lessnatural result of the evolution of NGOs’ active role in the country’s struggle fororientation in the first decade after the fall of communism. To contribute to thefundamental fight over Slovakia’s geopolitical affiliation, the think-tank, advocacyand campaigning capacities of the sector had to grow to disproportionaldimensions. This inevitably left other parts of the sector weak.NGOs’ quick retreat from power politics after 1998 consequently pre-determinedthe pitiful status of Slovakia´s civil society today. If we return to the analogyof the deformed human body, in the past decade the third sector has lostmuch of its strength in the head and arms, while failing to build a stronger bodyand legs. It’s no surprise then, that without a civil society watchdog, Slovakiais currently characterized by a gradual but steady shift towards a non-liberaldemocracy and a deeply corrupt government. The country remains formallydemocratic, but the people (alt. citizens) have a rather limited influence overpublic affairs. Public authorities, and political culture as a whole, are dominatedby corrupt political parties controlled by oligarchs lurking in the background.This turnaroundwas made possibleby the quick retreatof civil societyplayers from theirprominent role inpublic and politicallife, in other wordsby the naïve andpremature depolitizationof NGOsand their networksPolitical parties today are using their power for two very straightforward aims:Firstly, to sell cheaply whatever is still publicly owned and can be sold. This includesland, concessions and any other kind of publicproperty; and secondly to buy products for public usefrom the private sector at exorbitant prices. This includescars, arms, construction works, everything…. Party“friends” are involved in both types of transaction. Thissituation is symbolized by the current ruling coalition,two members of which were actually defeated in 1998.These are the populist Movement for Democratic Slovakia(HZDS) and the extremist nationalist and anti-HungarianSlovak National Party (SNS).The gradual shift towards a fundamentally corrupt klep-248

From democracy to kleptocracy and back?tocratic form of government, or rather a return to this phenomenon, startedshortly after the breakthrough in 1998. It occurred under the coalition governmentformed with crucial help from civil society organizations. This turnaroundwas made possible by the quick retreat of civil society players from their prominentrole in public and political life, in other words by the naïve and prematurede-politization of NGOs and their networks. Not only is the current governmentcorrupt on a major scale, it is also a government that understands the potentialthreat of civil society to the established regime. It is therefore innately hostileto civil society, as it is hostile towards any remaining outlets of free and criticalmedia. Unlike the pre-1998 government, thecurrent coalition is more Not only are NGOs intelligent and moreconstrained by rights and civil society guaranteed by theEU. It is also much lessorganizations too weakthreatened by the nowin terms of their humanweaker civil society, andthe overall atmosphereand material resourcesin the country. It doesnot need to behave tooto represent a threataggressively against theto the establishment.NGO sector. At the endof 2008, civil society in The population at large Slovakia is very unlikelyto succeed in mobiliz- is satisfied with the ing people on a scalethat could present a real situation. threat to the establishedrule of corrupt politicalparties and oligarchs.Not only are NGOs and civil society organizations too weak in terms of theirhuman and material resources to represent a threat to the establishment. Thepopulation at large is satisfied with the situation.Let me start with the social reasons for civil society’s current low levels of influenceon public matters. First of all, the psychological profile of Slovak societytoday compared to what it was in 1998 is entirely different. At the end of 2008,Slovakia is part of the EU, NATO, the Schengen Zone and will even join the Eurozoneat the start of 2009. Thanks to these anchors to the West, albeit combinedwith very cheap labor and several reasonable policies introduced bythe post-1998 government, over the past several years the economy has grownat a record speed. Unemployment has dropped to less than 8 percent. It is stillamong the highest in the EU, but a significant improvement on the 20 percentrecorded in the late 1990s. These fundamental achievements have given mostof the population a high level of personal comfort and a range of prospects forthe future. In 1998, many Slovak citizens were saying “if Meciar stays in power,I will emigrate from this country.” No major changes are needed today – if youare not happy here, you and your family are free to move elsewhere within theEuropean Union and return if and when you choose. It’s no longer a stressfulprocess, especially for those who are young and capable.This movement is indeed the reality for many Slovaks. Around 250,000 Slovaks –mostly those who are young, dynamic and well educated – are working and livingoutside the boundaries of Slovakia, in the Czech Republic, the U.K., Ireland,Germany, Italy, Scandinavia and elsewhere. In addition to this, around 20,000university students are studying outside of Slovakia. For a small country of 5.4million people, this is a very significant number of the working-age population.When it comes to potential rebels, activists and agents of change, the proportionoutside the country is even higher. The opportunity to leave the country iswide open, for the benefit of Slovak citizens, but also for the benefit of our corruptstatus quo. Too few people with the right profile remain to push for eventualchange.249

From democracy to kleptocracy and back?The second critically important change compared to 1998 is a result of themassive spread of information and communication technology over the last 10years. Linked to this potentially very beneficial trend is a deep fragmentationof public debate, due to the growth of the blogosphere. Information, views orideas presented in just a handful of key media outlets in 1998, such as the dailySME, were able to reach maybe 80 percent of the key players in civil societyas well as many other important people. To reach a comparable segment ofthe active citizenry without significant money today is much more difficult, if notimpossible. The position of printed media has been weakened by the growth ofWhile it is mucheasier for each andevery citizen tospread informationor express his or herideas, it is muchmore difficult toreach a criticalmass of people inorder to stir publicdebate aboutcritical issueselectronic channels, which are preferred by the youngergeneration, as well as by the commercialization ofprinted media, TV and radio stations and their high dependencyon advertising as well as popular, light topicsand images. While it is much easier for each and everycitizen to spread information or express his or her ideas,including political ideas, through the myriad of blogs, itis much more difficult to reach a critical mass of peoplein order to stir the widespread public debate aboutcritical issues that is essential for affecting change. Withjust a handful of free media outlets in 1998, the changewas, paradoxically, much easier to bring about than itis today.Looking at the dire situation of the third sector and civil society, most peopledescribing its weaknesses will start by talking about a lack of money. This is indeeda very important factor, but to me the high level of burn out and the lossof leadership in the sector is actually more important. In 1998, NGOs in Slovakiabenefited from strong leadership with a rather high level of legitimacy andrespect throughout the NGO community across the country. The situation wasnever simple, but the leadership was there and the sector and society at largebenefitted from this reality. Several of the key individual leaders of the Gremiumof the Third Sector (G3S) or OK 98 Campaign were experienced politicians,including former government ministers and MPs. The OK 98 leadership disappearednaturally with the completion of the OK 98 campaign, but the end ofthe G3S was not inevitable, nor desirable. It happened after several critical G3Sleaders stepped down and allowed the sector leadership to be filled by muchless experienced individuals. These new leaders lacked the necessary vision,drive and political experience. Within just a few years, the Gremium ceased toexist as a relevant political player, leaving the arena of “big politics” open onlyto political parties and oligarchs.The second most important weakness in the sector is indeed related to money.It’s not so much about the quantity of money available, but more about thequality. Critical financial support for NGOs’ political work before and shortlyafter 1998 came from the American private and public donors. However, U.S.donors never intended to remain active in Central Europe in the long term andthey gradually left Slovakia soon after 1998. Perhaps too soon. The logic behindthis early departure was complex, but clear – Central Europeans became partof the EU and NATO, two of the elite clubs of the world. The need for Americanresources in other parts of the world may be much bigger. Moreover, it wasclear, that the EU would flood new EU member states, including their civil so-250

From democracy to kleptocracy and back?ciety organizations, with much more money than the U.S. ever could. And thereality is that tons of money did come through. Unfortunately, however, it camewith massive bureaucratic restrictions and to finance priorities defined by CentralEast European (CEE) politicians and European bureaucrats, not by citizensand citizens’ organizations of either the new or old member states.European donors, both public and private, proudly ignored the opportunity tolearn from American experience in CEE and about U.S. grantmaking strategiesand practices that played a critical role in the democratic transformation ofthe region. Our West European counterparts proudly believe that they knowbetter than Americans – and the citizens of new EU memberstates – what democracy is and how to build it. Unfortunately,they never did know any better and certainlydo not know any better now. While interpreting that asintellectual arrogance is a bad sign, an even worse optionThe reality is thattons of money didcome through.is that they simply do not care about the quality of democracy in new memberstates. Whatever the reason, the consequences may be very costly, if thecancer of excessively corrupt politics and illiberal democracy spreads its longarms from Bratislava, Warsaw or Bucharest to Brussels and the older EU memberstates in general.At the end of 2008, citizens of Slovakia are still happy and blissfully ignorant aboutthe upcoming economic crisis. Civil society organizations are fragmented andlack politically literate and skillful leadership as well as financing. And there is nolonger a “big theme” to mobilize people behind as there was in 1997-98. Couldthe next big theme be fight against corruption? Or climate change? Upcomingenergy crisis? Or the fast decline of the middle class and the growth of povertywhen the economic crisis starts to hit really hard?The economic crisis may indeed prove to be a big opportunity for civil societyto challenge the corrupt political establishment,and not only in Slovakia. If civil society fails to The upcoming crisis is anopportunity to expose mobilize people around corrupt political deals toa sensitized population,real and forwardlookingissues, populiststo expose the flawedpolicies which served the interests of a few oligarchsat the expense ofthe interests of millions ofand nationalists willmobilize them aroundordinary citizens, in casesthe tried and testedrelating to the energyand transport sectors, themes of the 20th the environment, andthe issue of falling stan- century - nationalism, dards of education. Thecrisis presents us with ma- xenophobia and jor opportunities as wellas with major risks: If civil isolationism… society fails to mobilizepeople around real and forward-looking issues,populists and nationalistswill mobilize them aroundthe tried and tested themes of the 20th century - nationalism, xenophobia andisolationism…How to mobilize people around primitive instincts has been common knowledgefor centuries. How to do it around complex global issues is uncharteredterritory. Where to find resources for this more sophisticated form of mobilizationis another major challenge. No public or wealthy private players in Europeseem to be aware of the risks that have emerged over the last few years in CEEand can “infect” the rest of the Union. Even abuse of billions euro from EU funds251

From democracy to kleptocracy and back?for unjustified, flawed projects is being ignored by west Europeans, who pay forthem, fueling further culture of institutionalized corruption. They also seem to beignorant of the fact, that changing realities require a change in approach andstrategies.I know we should be looking for what we, the Slovaks, Czechs, Poles, Hungarians,Bulgarians and Romanians, can do ourselves to improve the situation insteadof pointing towards someone else, in Western Europe or elsewhere. Thereis no point in playing blaming game. But with receptive ears in Amsterdam,Berlin, Copenhagen, London, Madrid or Paris and channels for mutual dialogueopen, we all could be in much better and safer situation. We thought the 20thcentury was exciting, maybe it was just the beginning.Juraj Mesik’s educational background, as well as the first part ofhis career, was in biomedical research. 1989 marked achange in his professional focus, as he turned to politics. From 1989to 1990, Mesik served as a member of parliament in the CzechoslovakFederal Assembly in Prague and was chairman of the GreenParty. In 1990-1992 he was director of the Department of SocialContext at the Ministry of Environment in Prague, administering afederal grant program, which supported NGO development andenvironmental awareness. From 1993 to 2002, he was the Directorof the Environmental Partnership for Central Europe (EPCE) in Slovakia(now known as the Ekopolis Foundation). From 2003 to 2008,he worked as senior community foundations specialist for the WorldBank in Washington D.C. throughout his career, Mesik has been extensivelyinvolved in the development of the environmental movementand the wider third sector. From 1982 to 1992, he served aschairman of the local branch of the Slovak Union of Nature andLandscape Protectors (SZOPK). Mesik was elected to the City Councilof his home town Banska Bystrica in 1998 and to the RegionalParliament of Banska Bystrica in 2001. He is the author of numerousarticles which have appeared in a range of publications and internetportals.252

“The sleeping giant”- the church’srelationship with civilsocietyThe church plays an active role deliveringstandards and messages in more religiousCEE countries, but solidarity, openness andpotential for cooperation with civil society istrue only for a limited number of church organizationssais Maria Rogaczewska

“The sleeping giant” - the church’s relationship with civil societyAlthough the religious landscape of CEE is changing dynamically, the relationshipbetween the Church and civil society in many countries inthe region remains crucial. In this paper I will primarily focus on the CEEChurch that I know best from my own research – the Catholic Church in Poland.I hope this analysis will, however, lead to some more general conclusions, whichmay then inspire further discussion about other major churches in the region.The churches of CEE, which are mainly Roman Catholic,held different positions in the public sphere in1989, largely dictated by their history under Communism.The Roman Catholic Church in Poland arguablyenjoyed the strongest position. By 1989, the PolishChurch was the undisputed winner of the battleit had been waging against Communism for over 50years. It possessed astounding resources of populartrust, spiritual power and symbolic capital.Although the religiouslandscape of CEE ischanging dynamically,the relationshipbetween the Churchand civil society inmany countries in theregion remains crucialFor José Casanova, the Polish Church played a key role in the region’s changinggeopolitical situation. “The surprising, some would say miraculous, elevationof Cardinal Wojtyla to the papacy as John Paul II, his triumphal visit to Poland in1979, the rise of Solidarity a year later, and the collapse of the Soviet system in1989, bringing to an end the Cold War and the division of Eastern and WesternEurope, altered radically the march of history and global geopolitical configurations,”he observes.It is important to remember, however, that the strong position of the Polish CatholicChurch within the public sphere and its prominent objection to politicalinstitutions in 1989 did not result in it changing into a civic institution. MaryjaneOsa, sees this as a consequence of mistrust between the church and civil society,and warns against any oversimplification of the historical relationship betweennationalism and Catholicism in Poland. “First, many of the Polish clergyand Catholic virtuosi were wary of civic rhetoric during the 1980s, consideringthis to be a smoke screen for a liberal, pro-secularist movement to separatereligion from public life,” she notes.The privileged position of the Polish Catholic Church is directly linked to therole it played in Polish society throughout its history. Unlike the majority of othernational Catholic churches in Europe, such as those in France, Spain, Ireland orthe Czech Republic, the Polish Church has practically never allied itself with thestate against society. On the contrary, the Church has usually strived to be inalliance with society against the state. This is a marked difference compared tomany other European countries, where the alliance between the state and theChurch made religion and religious institutions instruments of power.During the partitions of Poland in the nineteenth century and under the Communistregime, the Catholic Church in Poland was institutionally very weak incomparison to its counterparts in Spain, France, Ireland or Italy. This phenomenonmanifested itself in a number of ways. Due to the restrictions imposed firstby imperial forces and then by communist authorities, up until 1989 there werevery few Catholic schools in Poland. This contrasts starkly with the situation in Irelandfor example, where almost all schools had been under Church supervisionsince the early nineteenth century. The ratio of clergy, monks and nuns to laity254

“The sleeping giant” - the church’s relationship with civil societyhas also traditionally been relatively low in Poland. Furthermore, faith-basedcharity initiatives were banned or strictly supervised by the state apparatus.On the other hand, the Polish Catholic Church managed to establish itself as agreat moral and spiritual authority during this period. This made it a very powerfulplayer in the public sphere after the fall of Communism. In many respects,over 20 years later, it is still one of the strongest mobilizing forces in Poland. Polishpeople still engage in Catholic rituals such as pilgrimage, open-air masses,processions and religious holidays. It is important to appreciate that this religiousactivity is usually very temporary, restricted to a specific context and not connectedwith everyday life in Poland. I would therefore claim that the impact ofreligious commitment on civic commitment is small and not unproblematic incontemporary Poland.Defining the Church after 1989In the early 1990s, just after the fall of the Communist regime, Catholic bishopsand the Catholic media in Poland started to mobilize the Church’s resources.They attempted to rally the faithful against developments connected withrapid modernization such as the growing presence of minority groups, culturalliberalism, consumerism, sexual morality and the changing role of the family.These panicky reactions towards modernization sometimes resulted in heavyhandedintervention by Church representatives in parliamentary proceedings,policy-making, public education and public debate. The main success of theCatholic Church during this period was the introduction of Catholic religiouseducation in all public schools. This decision was taken without any public discussionor consultation.The crusade against rapid modernization also became one of the main prioritiesof some grassroots Catholic initiatives like “Radio Maryja”. The Catholicradio station and its charismatic leader, Father Tadeusz Rydzyk, attracted hundredsof thousands of volunteers and supporters. This is not to say that these attacksconstituted a fully coherent movement enjoying universal approval withinthe Polish Catholic Church. The rapid progress of modernization after 1989 putthe Church in a difficult position. Whilst it was critical of many aspects of modernization,it still wanted to preserve its role as a ‘stabilizing’ and ‘integrating’force in Polish society. This ambivalence is still prevalent in the Church’s actionsand official statements today, leading to very different situations developingin different parts of Poland. Some bishops are very open to cooperation withcivic NGOs, and welcome the democratization of religious institutions, supportingthe introduction of measures such as financial transparency within parishes.Others continue to treat the idea of building bridges between the Church andthe secular world with skepticism.The challenge of social welfarePoland’s Communist welfare system collapsed in 1989, ushering in a period of20 years of inconsistent and largely ineffective social policy. This has led to highlevels of social exclusion and poverty as well as little social cohesion in Poland.To an outside observer, this may seem surprising or even shocking, in the country,where the Solidarity movement was born. A liberal tendency in social policywas apparent in a number of areas. On the eve of the twenty first century,there was a high tolerance of chronic and wide-scale unemployment among255

“The sleeping giant” - the church’s relationship with civil societyyoung people and women. Benefits for families were scarce and there was alack of practical support for the long-term unemployed. Poland had the lowestnumber of pre-school and day-care utilities in the EU and disabled peopleand women were largely excluded from the labor market. An American-stylelabor market was also in place. This was characterized by low regulation ofemployer-employee rela-tions and little protectionticularly in low-paid jobs,by women. This situationCatholic teaching on so-ages solidarity, and priori-and human dignity. Therebe done if we are to fullyancy between the valuesand the actual welfarenot only an intellectualpractical problem.of workers’ rights, parwhichwere dominatedis in strong opposition tocial values, which encourtizesthe common goodis still a lot of research tounderstand this discrepofthe dominant religionregime in Poland. This ispuzzle, but also a veryThere is still a lotof research to bedone if we are tofully understand thisdiscrepancy betweenthe values of thedominant religion andthe actual welfareregime in Poland.The key to understanding this discrepancy may lie in a certain evaporationof substantial parts of Catholic social teaching from the pastoral strategy andstatements issued by the Polish Catholic Church. James Bagget described asimilar process of evaporation in American parishes, as “the ability to avoidconnecting the Church teaching to social structures, public policy and broaderunderstandings of community.” I find the concept of evaporation that Baggetuses an inspiring analytical tool. Pastoral letters written by Polish bishops up to15 years after the fall of Communism were published as Polish society struggledto survive the period of economic shock therapy. In these letters the criticalvoice of the Church, so cherished by Casanova in his account of the PolishChurch during the Communist period, was either weak or very abstract. PolishBishops focused on cultural battles and defending Catholicism’s role in Polishidentity. They chose to separate, on a conceptual level, a free market frommorality. They favored abstract considerations about the dignity of work, insteadof accentuating the need to recognize the unemployed. The implicit acceptanceof, or at least neutral position towards, neo-liberalism is not only evidentin official documents, but also on a pastoral and organizational level. Oneof the most influential Catholic think-tanks in Poland, Tertio Millennio Institute,was founded by a Dominican father, Maciej Zieba. Financed by the AmericanEnterprise Institute, it lists the promotion of reconciliation of a free market withCatholic teachings as among its most important goals.In terms of the practical application of Catholic social teaching, it is indisputablethat since 1989 there has been a significant increase in the number ofChurch-based charities in Poland. There are 38 autonomous branches of Caritasand in cooperation with Caritas-Poland they manage hundreds of day-carecenters for children, the homeless and the elderly. Caritas organizes holidaysfor thousands of children at risk of social exclusion each year and coordinatesmany large-scale seasonal initiatives, such as distributing material aid to thosein need, usually before the most important religious holidays. There are also influentialcharities backed by the Polish Orthodox and Protestant churches, likeEleos and Diakonia. There are other charities, which count the Catholic Churchas their biggest donor. Almost all hospices and centers for the terminally ill inPoland are led by Church or faith-based organizations and most volunteers inthese centers are practicing Catholics. A considerable number of initiatives are256

“The sleeping giant” - the church’s relationship with civil societymanaged by nuns and monks, which help children and the elderly and manageyouth centers in Poland’s biggest cities.A relatively new trend is Church-based social entrepreneurship, with a few social-economicinitiatives starting up in some of the poorest regions of Poland.Last but not least, a well-developed network of Catholic parishes, over 10,000in total also provides basic help for those in need, though the scale of theseinitiatives is not accurately known. According to official data from the Instituteof Statistics of the Catholic Church (ISKK) there are about 340 various Catholicmovements and faith-based organizations in Poland, with approximately 2 millionmembers. This accounts for less than 10 percent of the population, not asignificant percentage in a country where half of the population still attendsChurch regularly.Grass-roots faithbasedorganizationsled by monks andnuns and parishbasedlay people,softened the socialconsequences ofeconomic shocktherapy.Bearing in mind the substantial institutional growth of Catholic initiatives after1989, it is interesting to discover that many of these organizations, while tryinghard to combat the social consequences of shock-therapy, had difficulties attainingofficial recognition within the Church. Projects which promise to provideextensive and long-term help, such as those aimed at the unemployed, onlymade it onto Caritas-Poland’s agenda relatively recently, when huge amountsof European Union funding were made available to Poland.Undoubtedly, the low level of social cohesionin Poland is first and foremost a consequence of thefailings of post-communist social policy. The CatholicChurch, especially grass-roots faith-based organizationsled by monks and nuns and parish-based lay people,softened the social consequences of economic shocktherapy.On the other hand, Church leaders contributed greatlyto legitimizing a certain discourse in the public sphere, which came to characterizethe 1990s. In this discourse, the neo-liberal economy was treated as somethingself-evident and plausible. Social problems were seen not as somethingwith structural origins, which therefore required structural solutions, but rather assomething rooted in the personal, or cultural, deficiencies of the individuals orgroups affected.Analysis of Church documents published in the nineties in which social problemswere discussed proves that Catholic social teaching was treated by itsauthors as an abstract, unearthly ideal rather than a set of critical tools withwhich to make a moral assessment of Poland’s economic situation. The primaryconcern of these documents was not the concrete threat to human dignitylinked to impoverishment and social exclusion, but rather various, mostly culturalthreats to an imagined community - the nation and its Catholic identity.In these documents, Polish society was conceptualized as one organism, withthe unity of that organism, rather than justice, prioritized as a common goal forall those to whom the documents were addressed. There is one crucial exception.In sermons given during his Polish pilgrimages, Pope John Paul II diagnosedquite succinctly the concrete threats to human dignity and the deep lack ofsolidarity in Poland. The details of the Pope’s teachings were, however, usuallyoverlooked in the collective excitement and sense of celebration surroundinghis pilgrimages to Poland.257

“The sleeping giant” - the church’s relationship with civil societyA thorough analysis of the position of the Catholic Church in the public sphereduring the first decade of transformation is crucial to understanding the fate ofthe Catholic religion in Poland in subsequent decades. Many of the faithful, disappointedwith the official position of the institutional Church, which was veryconservative and focused on defending the status quo and blind to new socialand individual problems, had two basic options. Firstly, they could lose trust inthe institutional Church and stop practicing Catholicism. The statistics show thatmany people took this option. The biggest reduction in practicing Catholicsoccurred among the long-term unemployed, the young, the poorly educatedand the working class. There is a clear trend among Poles to lose interest in theChurch’s teachings. According to data from the European Value Study, in 2008only 35 percent of Poles admitted that the Church offers the right answers toPoland’s social and political problems, down by over 12 percent since 2005.The second choice available to the faithful was to useCatholic teachings as a symbolic resource for theirown innovative actions and critical thought. This wasthe case with Radio Maryja, which separate from themainstream Catholic media, articulated the popularsense of powerlessness and disappointment. The relationshipbetween this radical social movement, whichattracted approximately 1 million supporters, and thePolish Episcopate, has always been very problematic.Radio Maryja, whichseparate from themainstream Catholicmedia, articulatedthe popular sense ofpowerlessness anddisappointment.The Episcopate has been very reluctant to solve the Radio Maryja problem,and the station has always enjoyed strong support from a number of bishops. Toan extent, Radio Maryja developed as a lone critical voice, representing one ofthe few manifestations of Catholic public religion in Poland after the glory daysof the Church’s struggle with Communism.Many new Catholicorganizations andmovements stillinterpret religiousideas in primarilyindividualistic terms,as a means to pursueindividual perfectionrather than guaranteethe common goodand solidarityPoland’s experience shows that the way in whichchurches and other religious institutions act on theeve of a radical transformation is critical to the fateof mainstream religion in a rapidly modernizing society.Catholic social teaching has not been successfullyused in Poland as a vehicle of morally driven,public criticism of injustice. It is not providing effectiveinspiration for innovative practices of solidarity. It hasbeen used rather as a sometimes randomly selectedset of recommendable ideals, to be realized in theprivate lives of individual members of the faithful.Many new Catholic organizations and movements still interpret religious ideasin primarily individualistic terms, as a means to pursue individual perfectionrather than guarantee the common good and solidarity. Religious educationin schools is also rather abstract and theoretical, which makes it difficult foryoung people to translate religious ideas into everyday life. Furthermore, thereis a problem with the pluralism of attitudes within the Church, which is moreoften a source of conflict rather than a source of fruitful cooperation and innovativepractice. Many honest and engaged citizens have felt deeply dividedbetween a supposedly good, supportive, compassionate Church, personifiedby Radio Maryja’s charismatic Father Rydzyk, and a supposedly bad Church,258

“The sleeping giant” - the church’s relationship with civil societypersonified by Catholic intellectuals, the elite and liberal bishops, allied with therich middle class in big cities.Going forwardThe Catholic Church in Poland still possesses the greatest assets and mobilizingpower of all NGOs active in the public sphere. It is still trusted by most of thePolish population. Church institutions, especially Catholic parishes, enjoy excellentlegal opportunities and tax privileges due to the Concordat between theVatican and Poland. Parishes and Church-based organizations can legally cooperatewith all authorities, cultural and non-governmental institutions. Anotherimportant asset is the relatively high level of education amongst most of theclergy and the number of Church-based educational institutions such as kindergartens,schools and Catholic universities.The problem with maximizing the potential of these great assets and thus havinga stronger impact on civil society is two-fold. Firstly, there is a time delaywith Church structures in Poland. These structures are still more heavily groundedin the past, when the Church was forced to act as a monolithic institutionto defend itself against the Communist regime, than in the present conditionsof a pluralist society. There are still huge problems with opening up executivepositions within Churchstructures for the laity. Allthe major positions in the All the major positions biggest Church organizationslike Caritas are in the biggest Church monopolized by membersof the clergy. There organizations like Caritas is still a great amount ofdistrust towards lay peo- are monopolized by ple in daily parish life.Only about 10 percent members of the clergy. of Polish parishes havea parish council whichincludes lay people. Thisdistrust between the clergy and the laity seems to be mutual, but once it issuccessfully overcome, parish life will be able to flourish and we will start to seecases where a parish effectively becomes a local community developmentcenter.The second barrier to the Polish Church having a greater impact on the developmentof civil society is the crisis of religious-based education in Poland. Thismay seem astonishing in a country where most children still enroll for lessonsin Catholicism in public schools. The problem lies in the fact that this educationis highly theoretical and abstract. Religious education in school cannotreplace a real education system for prospective Catholic leaders, who wouldhave a strong leadership profile and strong sense of working for the commongood. Such leaders and future committed citizens are only trained in a fewfaith-based organizations, such as the Scouts of the Republic of Poland, theAlliance of Families, Opus Dei, Communione e Liberazione and The Club ofCatholic Intelligence. A further problem is that this education is usually reservedfor the children of members of the upper and middle classes and intellectuals.There are few Church-based initiatives focused on the future generation likethe Siemacha youth centers in Cracow, or Catholic sports organizations suchas SALOS or Parafiada, which are open to all young people, regardless of theirsocial background.The official stance of the Catholic Church still underlines the basic role of thefamily in a child’s development, but in actual fact the Polish family has lost itsprominent role in the younger generation’s education. Radical change in gen-259

“The sleeping giant” - the church’s relationship with civil societyder roles, demographic changes and the strong pressure put on employees bythe labor market, alongside the growing influence of consumer culture meanthat families are less and less able to engender a sense of civic ethos and leadershipqualities in the younger generation.Church-based initiatives could have a huge impact on the formation of futurecivic leaders and committed citizens, not only in Poland. When familiesand schools lose a degree of authority and involvement with children, religiousorganizations can teach them altruism, encourage them to prioritize the commongood and give them a strong and lasting motivation to actively try to improvetheir society. We also have to remember that in a country like Poland, aswell as in many other CEEcountries, Church leadersare still more important Church-based than the institution of theChurch. Success in devel- initiatives could oping future generationsof committed citizens and have a huge impact faith-motivated volunteerswill be impossible withonthe formation ofout the promotion of layfuture civic leaderspeople. The Church hasto overcome the genderand committedbias, introduce a demo-cratic system of decisionmakingand put a muchheavier emphasis on acitizenspractical interpretation ofCatholic Social Teachingin the contemporary social world, culture and economy.I hope that these changes will gradually take place within the Polish Church,making it once again one of the most important allies of civil society in Poland,as it was under the Communist regime.________________________________________Literature:Bagget, Jerome P., 2006, “The Catholic Citizen: Perennial Puzzle or Emergent Oxymoron?”SocialCompass 2006; 53; 291.Casanova, José, 1994, Public Religions in Modern World, Chicago, University of Chicago PressOsa, Maryjane, 2003, Solidarity and Contention. Networks of Polish Opposition, Minneapolis, Universityof Minnesota Press.* I would like to thank my Colleague, Slawomir Mandes PhD, for his very helpful comments on myresearch into Church organizations as well as many inspirational discussions.Maria RogaczewskaM.A., born1978, is aPhD Candidate in Sociology and junior lecturer at Warsaw University.Her scientific interests focus on sociology of religion, and the role of religionwithin civil society and public sphere. A member of Experts Boardof CIVICUS Civil Society Index in Poland. A member of Community DevelopmentUnit of Institute of Sociology in Warsaw. As a researcher andexpert, she has cooperated with Polish-American Freedom Foundation,Klon-Jawor Association, Ministry of Social Policy in Poland, Schoolfor Leaders Association, and other non-governmental and public institutions.Writer and publicist (publishing in “Wiez”, “Tygodnik Powszechny”).Passionately interested in the ideas of parcipative democracy, public sociologyand social innovation. A co-founder of “Amicta Sole” - Catholic Women Initiative forpromoting women in the society.260

Representation is “out” – younger generationsare all about limited issues, smallgroups creating small change before dissolvingand moving to the next. But howcan it produce real effect – and what canestablished civil society learn asks MillaMineva.Divided demands

Recent protests in Bulgaria highlighted wide-scale discontent with the nation’sgovernment. But with protestors divided and clear, common aimsdifficult to establish, attitudes to, as well as the organization of, the politicalsphere will have to undergo a major transformation before civil society inBulgaria is given a clean bill of health.Small groups, divided societiesReferring to contemporary societies as fragmented is commonplace in socialsciences circles. The term describes the disintegration of a society into a myriadof small groups, which each tend to be heading in their own direction. Identifyingall the reasons for this disintegration would be impossible in just a few words.Nevertheless, we can identify some of the more influential factors.Overvaluing homoge- neity was the culturalnorm in the nation state It is no accident that the model. There was thena shift towards overvalu- Internet’s relationship ing difference as the nationstate was opened with activism is not up and undermined.Last but not least, thelimited to activismhegemony of neo-liberaldiscourse put com-petition and the marketwithin the net, whichbecame apparent inat the centre of society.All of these shifts havedevelopments such asplayed a role in thethe copyleft movement.fragmentation of society.This fragmentation isin evidence daily in theever-increasing number of choices available.These choices help to construct a more defined individuality in members of asociety.On the other hand, we tend to explain social inequalities as a consequence ofchoice rather than of social circumstances. The idea of lifestyle now dominateswhere once class and strata were the key considerations.It is important to remember that when a discourse of aesthetic inequalities dominates,this does not necessarily imply that efforts are being made to changethis domination and create a different society.Small groups are formed around these individual choices, leading to what MarkPenn refers to as microtrends. The Internet is not at the heart of the formation ofthese small groups. However, social networking sites in particular may play animportant binding role in their creation and organization. It is no accident thatthe Internet’s relationship with activism is not limited to activism within the net,which became apparent in developments such as the copyleft movement.Activism which uses the Internet as an important tool is also very popular andeffective today.The secret of these small groups lies not only in the fact that they are formedaround individual choices, but also in their ability to change aspects of everydaylife. They are therefore able to build up a profile which can be drawn onagain for future civic action.The withdrawal from the politicalParadoxically, the everyday efficiency of these small groups tends to lead totheir withdrawal from the political sphere. Currently, at least in Bulgaria, there262

are examples of small groups coordinating successfulcampaigns to effect urban policy. If a unitedgroup of citizens is able to turn around decisions,then many people will start to question whether votingis actually worth the effort.That is precisely why we see many active environmentalgroups, for instance, refusing to take part inthe political decision-making process. A rather interesting example from Bulgariais the BG-Mamma online forum. This community of mothers organizescharity events and attempts to protect the social rights of mothers. They havestubbornly refused to define their actions in political terms, even when they arehaving an impact on the social policy of the central authorities. They definetheir activities as civic ones. They see themselves playing a supportive role tomothers, and do not attempt to view these interests in the context of society asa whole.The only form of political participation which has appeared to be adequatelately is direct democracy, or perhaps a more appropriate term would be adhocracy.I would nevertheless claim that direct democracy in this context doesnot mean a strengthening of the political sphere. On the contrary, it may evenmean a radical rejection of the political sphere.The demand for a daily referendum was the only demand shared by all thedifferent groups that protested in Bulgaria in January. It was hoped that a dailyreferendum would rescue the decision making process from corrupt and ineffectivepoliticians and put it back in the hands of the general public.Although manygroups supportedthe protests,their differenceseventually ledto disunity andprevented them fromreaching their goals.If a united group ofcitizens is able to turnaround decisions, thenmany people will startto question whethervoting is actually worththe effort.Power would then be expert-driven. In this sense, directdemocracy turns out to be a form of withdrawalfrom the political sphere. Individual groups wouldvote on issues directly related to their area of interestand expertise. Environmentalists would vote on environmentalpolicies and so on. Other groups would notbe active in the daily referendum on environmentalissues. This is based on the assumption that puttingpower in the hands of those who are the most wellinformedwould lead to choices being made that are the best option for everyone.If some voters are not happy, the votes could be cast again on the followingday. It is obvious that there is a problem with representative democracyin Bulgaria. I have my doubts, however, that direct democracy is the solution.There is another important consequence of the efficiency of small groups. Theyare so internally homogeneous, that they are often unable to negotiate withother groups. The protests in Bulgaria in January were initiated by a number ofdifferent groups –students, environmentalists, mothers and farmers among others.Although many groups supported the protests, their differences eventuallyled to disunity and prevented them from reaching their goals. As the protestsunfolded, protestors discovered that they had different demands and even differentideas on how to protest. On the second day of the protests, the environmentalistsbegan a silent protest. As this tactic was not adopted by all the otherprotesters, the environmentalists looked like a colorful, quiet and depressed263

group in the frontline of the protesting crowd. While the environmentalists keptsilent, the students desperately tried to make the whole square resound withthe national anthem. The nationalist leaders and their supporters, who werealso genuinely protesting unlike the provocateurs present on day one, wereshouting slogans such as “Resignation!”, thus giving shape to the whole protest.As the actions on the square were broken up a similar break-up was evident inthe protestors’ demands. Some wanted video surveillance and a police presencein the Studentski Grad part of Sofia, where most of the city’s students live.Others wanted a ban on Internet tapping and bugging. Another group wantedto take back control of the state. All of them eventually demanded supportfor the Bulgarian bee-keeping industry. After a failed attempt at agreeingupon clear and collective demands, the protestersonly succeeded in demanding an amendment tothe law on referendums, and the protests naturallycame to an end without any major achievements.In actual fact, the main problem is that none ofthese groups could convert their private demandsinto civic or political ones. No group was able tolook beyond the horizon of their own, small and homogenousgroup. The demand for the governmentto resign raised on the second day of the protests could not be taken seriously,because no one was offering an alternative.The main problem of small groups is that they are not expansive. Secondly,because of their homogeneity, they are not willing to talk to other groups andnegotiate a common position. They are so convinced that their demands areright and just that they do not see any sense in re-negotiating them. They areonly looking for experts to put them in an effective and legally binding format.The re-invention of the politicalThere are a number of key problems that active civil society is facing today. Thedisintegration of society does produce small and active groups, but it also leadsto the loss of a common, relatively neutral space, in which these small groupscould negotiate their interests. An even more critical problem for the effectiveoperation of civil society is that these new small groups are formed around specificprivate interests. They are so effective at protecting theses interests thatthey have no desire to make an effort, and hence we don’t see them makingan effort, to participate in any debate on the common good.Their idea of utopia is the fulfillment of all private interests at the same time,and all that is needed to create this utopia is an expert. TheThe spherein which thecommongood could bediscussed nolonger exists.The demand for thegovernment to resignraised on the secondday of the protestscould not be takenseriously, because noone was offering analternative.work of small groups counters that of other similar organizations,so meeting everyone’s expectations simultaneously isnot possible.The sphere in which the common good could be discussedno longer exists. It disappeared along with the disappearanceof a common, relatively neutral, public space. Thereis no longer a forum for critique of the state and its practical withdrawal, forcritique of the political sphere, and power in general.Added to this is a broader, global crisis affecting ideas relating to the public264

good, and the rise of the neo-liberal discourse from Thatcher’s time up until theend of the Bush era.Times may be changing however. We are already seeing evidence of the economiccrisis making the hegemony of neo-liberalism seem less legitimate. I alsointerpret the election of President Obama as an indication of a return to thepolitical sphere. In Eastern Europe such a process will be a lot more difficultbecause of the historical context in which it needs to take place, namely inpost-transition societies. The agenda for the transition process has already beensuccessfully implemented. Market economies and democracy are already inplace.The market economy, however, has been profoundly delegitimized, and notbecause of the crisis, which has not yet been felt so strongly in this part of theworld. Sociological surveys indicate a steady trend, economies are growingand so is social discontent. The problem is that the market proved not to bethe instrument of justice it had been seen as at the beginning of the transition.Democracy is there but people have a growing feeling that they do not participatein the decision-making process.When people ceaseto be able to envisagean alternative future,they cease takingpolitical action.Coming up with new,alternative politicalprojects is what canbring citizens back tothe political sphereIf we leave all the external factors aside, we seethat it was the politics of consensus which actuallykilled the political sphere. People changed theirgovernments all the time, but they never succeededin changing the course of their political actions.Seen in this perspective, refusing to vote in electionsbecame a completely rational choice. People willnaturally begin to question the logic of legitimizingparties as their representatives if those parties donot offer alternatives in which they recognize theirown interests.In my view, along with the refusal to vote, an even more disturbing trend cameabout. People began to resign themselves to the political sphere, to see it assomething over which they have no influence. When people cease to be ableto envisage an alternative future, they cease taking political action. The dismissalof the politics of consensus in which ideological differences are blurred isthe first essential step in the come-back of the political sphere and in encouragingparticipation in it. Coming up with new, alternative political projects is whatcan bring citizens back to the political sphere, what can bring them back asparticipants, not as passive observers. The renewal of civil society may be dependenton a reinvention of the political sphere.Milla Minevahas an MA in Cultural Studies,and she is doing PhD inSociology at Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridsky, where she now is assistantprofessor in the Sociology of Culture. Her research includes projects onSocialist consumer culture, National identity, Cultural patterns of Europeanenlargement. In 2008 she was involved in the project Microtrends, realizedby Open Society Institute, Sofia, Center for Liberal Strategies and “Capital”newspaper. The aim of Microtrends is to analyze the social processes frommicro-perspective identifying small, counterintuitive, but active groupswith potential to cause social changes. The results of the project havebeen published recently in the book “Guide 2020”.265

Monika Balint shares herexperiences of the difficultiesof change – bothwhile transforming herorganization from a politicalyouth network to alocal formal NGO, andthe long term investmentnecessary to change theatmosphere in a localurban community.The policy of small steps– experiencing local development

The policy of small stepsWhen an association of young activists goes into partnership with localgovernment to work on a large social regeneration program, thislong-term cooperation requires new working methods and a differentkind of knowledge. When ZöFi, a previously informal group of green activists didprecisely that, they started to realize some of their own limitations as well as thelimitations of the other participating groups. Although the participation of localresidents and civil organizations is a crucial element of such a neighborhoodprogram, perceptions of what form that participation should take can be verydifferent. For ZöFi, this meant fundamental changes to the organization itself.Ups and downs of civil society in HungaryThere are some aspects of the development of civil society in Hungary, whichare unique to post-socialist countries. The political changes and peaceful revolutionsof 1989 were based on the rise of new civil movements and organizations.In the 1980s, formal and informal activist groups and civic forums wereorganized in response to certain issues, such as the construction of the Gabcikovo-NagymarosWaterworks. Others aimed to initiate dialogue on the stateof democracy and the possibility of change. These organizations had stronglypolitical agendas. Many of them formed the basis of new parties, as the dreamof holding the first democratic elections became a reality. Some former activistsbecame politicians and members of the new parliament. The nature of thisstrong connection between organized politics and civil society has changedover the past twenty years. It did, however, have a strong impact on how civilsociety was rebuilt, as well as on how civil society organizations are perceivedby the general public.At the turn of the newmillennium, when somepolitical parties gainedinfluence both in theeconomic sphere and themedia, civil organizationsalso started to depend onparty politics.International funds, like Phare, and other organizationsthat helped to improve democratic conditionsby providing financial and professionalhelp for civil organizations, independent culturalinstitutions and fledgling charity groups played akey role in development in the 1990s. Their activitywas perceived with both hope and suspicion. Formany, these sources helped to start the processof improving social, ecological, economic or culturalconditions in the country as well as developingnew institutions and their networks. In some cases these initiatives grewand became independent, others proved to be less sustainable and collapsedafter the often paternalistic help of the state and international organizationswas withdrawn. Skepticism was largely linked to a fear of being colonized, andconcern that international interests would influence the development of Hungary’scultural, political and civil spheres.At the turn of the new millennium, when some political parties gained influenceboth in the economic sphere and the media, civil organizations also startedto depend on party politics. This often did not help their development, andalso contributed to the public’s perception of the sector. In some cases, corruptionin the political sphere was linked to corruption in civil organizations. In2002 party politics again strongly invaded civil society, when the so-called CivicCircles (Polgári Körök) were formed by Fidesz, a right wing party, after losingthe elections. The Civic Circles aimed to question the legitimacy of the government,but the initiation of civil forums and groups by a political party shook the267

The policy of small stepsfoundations of the sector.The politically influenced and strongly divided media has also provided negativerepresentations of the civil movement. Organizations have therefore hadto find new ways of communicating to challenge misleading representations.When people started to lose faith in the political system, civil organizations hadto think about the ways in which they can gain trust and show alternative methodsof civic engagement. Information and publicity remain crucial to civil organizations.From a group of activists to an institutionalized organizationZöFi – Hungarian Young Greens is an association of young people from differentprofessional backgrounds who share an interest in social and ecologicalissues. The organization was founded in 2001 and has subsequently changeda lot, with many members leaving and new onesUnlike most greenorganizations, themajority of the membersof ZöFi studied humanand social sciences,communication,sociology oranthropology.taking their place. At the beginning, it was a groupof friends interested in green politics. Instead of officialpolitical activity and lobbying, ZöFi relied moreon activism, street actions, protests, media hacking,printing fanzines, making documentary videosand cooperating with some, more radical, greenand anti-globalist groups. This relatively informalactivity helped to generate publicity, as well as attractingmore and more members, supporters andpartners. ZöFi is not a traditional green organization in the sense that it has rarelyorganized programs based directly on ecological phenomena. Our activity, asnoted in the ZöFi manifesto written by Gábor Csillag, has mainly been reflectingand introducing an overall more ecologically and socially engaged view. Wealso provide examples of how this can be achieved on an everyday level, bymaking lifestyle changes and taking action. Therefore, disseminating informationthrough different media actions, public events and education is one of themain elements of our activity. Unlike most green organizations, the majority ofthe members of ZöFi studied human and social sciences, communication, sociologyor anthropology.In parallel to the professional developmentof members, the core group of ZöFiin the past few years has changed. It hasbecame more institutionalized, and startedto develop long-term projects, and applyfor large grants and financial support. Weare still using the experience and knowhowgained in the past, but the structureand the dynamics are somehow different.Our activities and institutional structure arebecoming similar to that of other NGOs,rather than less formal activist groups. Withthis change we are facing new tasks, goals,and problems.One of the positive elements of this developmentis that we have been able toPictures from Zöfi activities in a neighborhood of Budapest268

The policy of small stepscreate a stable office, and engage in long-term projectsand cooperation. This needs more planning andwork, and therefore some of us have become parttimeor full-time ZöFi employees. The negative side ofthese developments is that the task of sustaining thisnew environment and work required by the projectsthemselves sometimes requires more resources thanthe staff and members can offer. For example the renovation of the office tookalmost a year and lots of voluntary work was needed. During this period manyof us were spending our free time on this work, and not on developing newactivities. As the work was not visible, we felt that we were also becoming lessvisible. This kind of work requires lots of commitment and in contrast to the streetactions, does not give those involved a sense of instant gratification. These tasksdo not represent a good opportunity to attract new members. Furthermore, thelong-term projects are more complex and in many ways, they require a deeperunderstanding and commitment. The Magdolna program, for example, issomething that might only interest a few people. In many cases, our activitiesdo not resemble projects run by other green organizations. We are only able todelegate some tasks to volunteers, such as newspaper and festival work, and itis obvious at this stage, that we have to develop a new system of working withvolunteers.The organization is stillopen by definition,but its structure andoperation is becomingsomehow more closedand less appealing toyoung students andactivists, who were ouroriginal target group.The task of sustainingthis new environmentsometimes requiresmore resourcesthan the staff andmembers can offerThe organization is still open by definition, but its structureand operation is becoming somehow moreclosed and less appealing to young students and activists,who were our original target group. Realizingthis problem, we had to develop new projects directedat students, and more recently we applied to anNGO for a professional investigation into the state ofour organization, and help in improving it.Going local – from green activism to neighborhoodmediationIn 2008 we opened an office and became involved in a long-term project, theMagdolna Program. Through its local development company, Rév 8. Plc., thelocal government of Józsefváros district 8. of Budapest launched a long-termregeneration program for the district. By dividing the district into 11 quarters,they have developed different plans for each quarter, with each gaining anew name. The quarter, which is geographically at the center of the district,was renamed Magdolna, after a positive-sounding local street name. Giving itthis nice, female name was the first step in creating a new positive identity forthis unpopular quarter. Magdolna is something of an experimentation ground.In this area local residents and civil organizations will work together to bringabout change by improving social, economic and physical conditions.Effective cooperation between participants is therefore crucial. 11 The program and related data can be seen at: Magdolna Regeneration Model Program - www.rev8.hu, The Jozsefvaros Mid-Term Urban Development Program can be seen at www.jozsefvaros.hu. Sources of statistics include Rév8 and Studio Metropolitana: Regeneration in Budapest – Józsefváros,Magdolna Quarter Program information booklet 2007 and Magdolna Negyed servey bySándor Erdosi, Rév 8. 2005-2007.269

The policy of small stepsZöFi joined the project in response to an appeal for civil organizations to participatethat was made by Rév 8. Plc. in 2006. Organizations from different backgroundscould apply for empty and run-down office space. The local governmentoffered help in the renovation of this office space in return for involvementin the renovation process and organization of projects connected to the aimsof the Magdolna Quarter Program, especially in community development. AlthoughZöFi is not a socialexperience in communitymembers found cooperatheprogram challenging.Where a communityhas to bestrengthened and anactive civil spherehas to be built, thedevelopment of thepublic sphere is aorganization, and has littledevelopment, its youngtion and participation inWe knew little about localdevelopment, but we hada lot of experience in ac-tivism, generating publicdiscourse and mobilizing must. volunteers. Many of us arealso engaged in the ‘glob- al education’ program– teaching schoolchildren and high school students about global social, economicand ecological issues from a green perspective. Civil engagement ofthe inhabitants in local issues and therefore civil organizations in the quarter areweak. Where most of the population is poor and face an everyday struggle forsurvival, participating in decision-making and in the improvement of the areaare far from their priorities. Apart from offering a variety of programs for kids andyoung people based on our experience in global education, and lobbying forincluding green elements in the development program, we decided to proposetools that can meet some basic needs. Crucial elements of our projectsare communication and publicity. Where a community has to be strengthenedand an active civil sphere has to be built, the development of the public sphereis a must. Our experience in acting publicly was something we could offer tothis community. We decided to start a new and independent local newspaper,270

The policy of small stepswhere inhabitants and institutional partners can talk about their experience ofthe regeneration program, the positive and negative aspects, and their needs.Also we take part in and organize forums with otherorganizations. Through public art projects and culturalevents we also generate debate, and try to attractthe attention of not only those living in the quarter,but also of other inhabitants of the city, who might stillhave negative associations with the area. Some of theprograms that we have so far found to be successfulinclude creating gardens with local residents, organizingregular free markets and creating the Magdi localnewspaper. 2Experiencing changeWe have gained a lot of positive and also negative experiencein the past few years. As we are still committedto the project, we have to have a clear idea of theareas where our help can beThe bureaucraticstructure of thelocal government issomething that definesevery move made,and creates barriers.useful. ZöFi might look professionalin some cases, asits members have their ownprofessional background,but it is a civil organization.We are not social workers,or community developers,architects etc. We cannot take on the responsibilitiesof other public institutions or NGOs, but we can helpdirect those institutions towards the real needs of thosepeople we have regular contact with.Our personal experience shows that there are someproblems which are almost constant and their origin seems to be structural:• Poor communication.• Poor levels of knowledge about civic rights and tools used to prevent them.• A clash between different institutional structures.The bureaucratic structure of the local government is something that definesevery move made by the development company, and creates barriers. Theproblem of poor communication stems from strategies employed by local governmentoffices. Even if many people employed by the development companyare sensitive to the needs of the people they meet during the program, theiractivity is restricted. Timescales also vary dramatically. The local governmentneeds a year to make one decision, the organizations involved need a furtherfew month to prepare their next steps and residents demand immediate actionif a problem occurs, or if they have been promised something.Many of the local residents have no knowledge about the regeneration program.Most people did not know a year ago that they live in the so-called“Magdolna” quarter, which is a basic element of acquiring any kind of feelingof local identity. People can support the program only if they have some informationabout it, and then only if they find its aims match their own interests or2 For further details of the activities see www.zofi.hu271

The policy of small stepsbeliefs. Even civil organizations, which applied to take part andother partners, are rarely informed about the next steps. This isthe result of both working with organizations with completelydifferent structures, and poor communication methods. It tookmore than a year for the institutions involved to sign a contracton the renewal of the offices and the community developmentplans. It was only half a year later that the organizationscould sign a rental agreement and get the keys. This setbackin development brought six organizations closer together. Afteralmost one year of not being informed, ZöFi organized ameeting of the six organizations involved in the developmentprogram. We contacted Rév 8. Plc and the local governmentand started to complain and show our commitment to startworking. This improved the communication to some extent.The commitment of civil organizations can be seen in two basicelements: we were and we are ready to take on the fictionalname of the Magdolna Community and use this namein our projects. We see it as a tool to clarify our target groupand the physical boundaries of our activity. The name is fictional,but the houses and the people who live here, are not. The other elementof commitment is some kind of restriction on our activity in this area, accordingto the needs of the community and the programs of other partners. Thatmeans, we cannot push programs that do not completely meet the needs orthe interests of the local inhabitants, and we have to inform all the other organizationsabout our future activities and plans. Furthermore, we have had tomake plans together with some other organizations. These organizations havedifferent backgrounds and professional knowledge, but similar interests. Communicationbetween us is essential to avoid any of us becoming redundant.Both these elements are different from the critical and free attitude of the activistorganization that ZöFi used to be. I think these self restricting elements aregenerated by a need for cooperation and can be justified through makingthe goals clear and carrying out conscious self criticism. These elements are requiredfrom other partners too. This is where negotiations about roles and taskscan start.It is hard to demandcommunitydevelopment in anarea, where thecommunity hasnever been united,and in a quarter,which has neverexisted before.There are only a few dozen people in the area who havethe means to be active in public debates and fight fortheir own good. Different organizations, including Rév 8.Plc and ZöFi, organize forums on local issues. In most ofthese forums there are only a handful of people (in anarea of 5000 inhabitants), and those who come do notrepresent the interests of all the groups in the quarter.In August and September ZöFi will start an investigationinto this phenomenon. With the partner organizations,especially with social workers, who have lots of personalexperience, we will try to find either new ways of bringingand involving people in these forums, or use other tools for building the localpublic sphere.It is hard to demand community development in an area, where the communityhas never been united, and in a quarter, which has never existed before.272

The policy of small stepsThe society of the area is not one community, but this fiction will slowly start tobecome reality. As people find their own goals in the programs and find waysof connecting to it, these interests can create something like a community, integratingthe different groups.Breaking down barriersTaking part in this long term program was, and is, a real challenge. After aperiod of merging with the new space and the new area, losing lots of energyand even members of the organization in the process, we have got to a pointwhere the positive side of engagement in this local program is becoming visible.We are getting credit for our activities, and also our activities are muchmore visible by now. We are again able to involve newWe have got toa point, whereinstitutionalizationis not somethingwe have to regret,and definitely notsomething we canstep back from.people in our work and increase cooperation with otherorganizations. Now it is clear to us that change cannothappen in a short period of time, but can be achievedthrough taking a series of small steps, while the position ofevery partner is reinvestigated again and again.Self criticism, as I mentioned is an important element inthis cooperation, but it is also important for the organizationitself. We have got to a point, where institutionalizationis not something we have to regret, and definitely not something we canstep back from. Stepping back would be a radical decision, which can bemade, but it goes against the structure that was recently created, with the materialsides of the institution, and our engagement in long term projects. This engagementis something that can be fulfilled as I mentioned with a constant reexaminationof our position, if we are to be aware of whether the steps we aretaking originate in our aims, or are generated by external need. At this point,our position has to remain one of a mediator in this new network of people andorganizations, helping barriers to be broken down. Parallel to this, we have todevelop programs that are based more on the original, more universal aims ofthe Young Greens.Mónika Bálintis a sociologist, cultural worker, activistand project coordinator atZöFi - Hungarian Young Greens. Her field of research is participation in art projectsand community development. As a local activist she has been involved in differentprojects in the Józsefváros, district VIII. of Budapest. She has also worked on someadditional projects, including the Magdi Fesztival, a 3 days Romani - Hungarian festival,which took place from 14-16.05.2009, Magdolna Quarter Community projects,with ZöFi- Hungarian Young Greens 2008-2009. www.zofi.hu and on Normal is different.(Bipolar projects) KIMI Budapest – Theather an der Parkaue, Berlin. (http://www.winterakademie-berlin.de), She was also organizer and curator of Filmpiknik, www.up-budapest.hu273

Redefining NGOsNGOs risks “losing touch”due to alienation fromcitizens, problems findinga common languagewith normal people andtendencies towards selfcenteredand undemocraticorganizations withpoor management skills,warns Primoz Sporar

Redefining NGOsSure people know about us. We claim to pursue the public’s interest andrefer to ourselves as civil society organizations, or in Slovenia, mostly asNGOs. You can’t avoid us. When legislation is being adopted, roads arebeing built or new jobs are being created, whether that’s on a local or internationallevel, we are always there.We claim to know the terrain, to have an awareness of people’s needs andinterests, we say we rep-resent people, we saywe have solutions, butdo we? In fairness to theTwenty years ago,Slovenian NGO sector,we certainly had solutionswhen there was ato the lack of democclearlydefined andracy. Twenty years ago,when there was a clearly visible challenge, defined and visible challenge,combating the combating the lack lack of participation in oursociety, it was easier. Ad- of participation in our dressing this aim workedfor NGOs for at least ten society, it was easier. years during and after thetransition period in all CEEcountries. “No democracywithout NGOs” wasthe slogan.But in the face of new global challenges, NGOs seem to be much less convincingwith criticism that we’re teaching our grandmothers to suck eggs widespread.Still remain teaching people to suck eggs. It seems that the mantra“Projects, projects, projects” is just not enough anymore. It seems that peopleworking for NGOs are becoming more and more like many international experts.They travel a lot and learn more and more about their area of expertise,but all this has a limited impact. They spend time on planning, writing projectsand establishing programs, evaluating the key issues, sitting in conferences anddeveloping standards, taking care of salaries and offices, paying debts andspending money, but what’s the outcome? You could be forgiven for askingwhether I’m talking about the administration or NGOs, they are starting to soundvery much alike. But they’re not alike. They differ even in their raisons d’être.The many millions of NGOs imply millions of raisons d’être, but we are united byone factor – almost all of us think our work is in the public interest, that we areneeded and effective. We complain that it is the political, legal and fiscal environmentthat is not enabling us to play the role we would like to, but is that thereal reason for our ineffectiveness?Planning, writingprojects, establishingprograms, evaluatingissues, sitting inconferences,developing standardsand spending money- but what’s theoutcome?We have to face some facts. The managerial skills ofpeople working in the NGO sector are hardly comparableto those evident among their counterparts inthe business world. Many NGOs are less democraticthen public institutions, sometimes they are even autocraticand above reproach. It’s also rare that NGOexperts possess a similar level of knowledge as expertsfrom universities. NGO breakthroughs are limitedcompared to research institutions. Rarely can NGOsclaim that they represent people as elected representativesdo. They rely on foreign funding so are largely independent of theeconomic pressures affecting the business sector. They are also often top-downorganizations largely driven by donors. Even their goals are frequently donordriven,with their existence more closely related to the salaries of employeesthan the potential benefits for the target group. Political dependence on the275

Redefining NGOsMany NGOs areless democraticthen publicinstitutions,sometimes evenautocraticgovernment in power also harms the integrity and identityof the sector and gender equality remains an issue. Familyand worker friendly values are not always promoted. CanNGOs claim to be using advanced management techniques,e NGO systems, participatory foresight exercises,social responsibility standards, benchmarking techniquesand open coordination scoreboards? No, largely theycan’t.All that can be changed. And we are seeing the sector develop in that direction.We are attempting to be perfect across the board, but is that really theultimate goal? Should our focus be to employ more people in the sector, toearn more money, to help more people, to account for a bigger proportion ofGDP? Are we trying to imitate the Slovenian public healthcare system, with its 7minutes per patient, so that we have 7 minutes per victim of violence, refugee,asylum seeker, Roma and poor person? We are being told that privatization ofpublic services is THE chance for the sector, that NGOs provide effective andlow-cost services. We are increasingly playing a simple socio- economic roleand unconsciously becoming factories for forgotten people.After the first exodus from NGOs in the nineties, when people from the sectoremigrated to political parties, it seems we are witnessing a second. We seem tobe deserting and abandoning our roles. The sector’s energies are being spenton finding our role in the world of capitalism and neo-liberalism, instead of oncreating a vision for the ultimate open society. Maybe that’s no coincidence.Filling out forms to create statistics about how good we are is slowly underminingour human face. Implementation is conquering innovation. And I canimagine that many people are not displeased with us for doing the paperworkinstead of living in the real world and being the annoyance we used to be. Butdo not be mistaken, faith coming from the government in our ability to providecheap services is more of a result of their equanimity for our target groups thanan indication of trust in our work.We do still have empathy for our target groups, you can see it in our eyes. Weare still trusted by the general public, which makes a clear distinction betweenus and most public bodies. Although if you listen toNGO representatives explaining poverty, abusesand discrimination, you almost get the impressionthat they need all this sorrow for their existence.Maybe there is a fear that our work could resultin citizens who are so active that they no longerneed NGOs. They have to continue to depend onus if we are to continue to be necessary, we aregood at having the monopoly on problems. I thinkThe sector’s energies arebeing spent on findingour role in the world ofcapitalism and neoliberalism,instead of oncreating a vision for theultimate open society.competition from other sectors would do us good. Do we ask our clients forfeedback? Have we evolved in line with their changing needs over the lastdecades? You can see evidence of that in some individual NGOs, but the sectoras a whole has largely not changed much. People, jobs, the weather, governmentsand cars have changed, but how have we? Just getting older is notenough. We still expect the external world to understand us even if we don’tprovide any explanations, we think the need for our existence is that obvious.What is the biggest change in the perception of NGOs over the last twenty276

Redefining NGOsyears? Would shifting our empathy and services to unashamedly reaching peoplebe such a revolutionary step? Being as good as we think we are, we couldeasily earn the money to guarantee a continuing stream of clients. Hopefully itwon’t come to that, but getting closer to the real world seems to be an increasingtrend. Maybe that wasthe reasoning behind therecently established associ- Do we ask ation of (reach) managersin the NGO sector in Slove- our clients for nia. This is probably unlikely,however, as a trade union feedback? Have of NGO workers was alsoestablished in the last year. we evolved in Is social dialogue replacinga civil one? The bottom line line with their is that in an era of informationtechnology, globalizachangingneedstion and the financial crisis,over the lastNGOs, compared to othersectors, do not seem to bedecades?overly concerned aboutcoming up with new approaches.They have noreal idea about where togo.The cult of laziness and abundance is also influencing our work. How else canwe explain the evolution of new, local initiatives, organized by citizens themselvestargeting concrete problems? They are informal, ad-hoc and problemoriented.They receive no funds and these activists seldom approach the professionaland formal NGOs which claim to be there for them. It seems that weare slower, less flexible, and are losing touch. We do not need regulation fromgovernment, but need to be regulated by people and their needs. Unfortunately,not many NGOs are interested in such projects.Let me remind you of a child’s approach. They are spontaneous, sincere, frank,open, direct, honest and sparkling — true friends. It is so nice to see them beingdisobedient. They play rather than plan to play or convince others to play.There is wisdom in their games. There has to be, otherwise they would not behappy. Are we happy in the NGO sector? Instead of talking, planning and convincingdonors and governments to allow us to interact, we should be disobedientand just interact more with our clients and friends. In the coming EuropeanYear of Creativity and Innovation, using the child’s approach may be a niche.Primož Šporaris attorney at law acting as an Executive Directorof Legal Information Center for NGOs inSlovenia. He is actively involved in projects and programs in the field of human rights protection,development of the alternative dispute resolution methodsand development of enabling environment for the work of thecivil society organizations in Slovenia and the European Union. Heis a member of different working groups for preparation of legislationand initiator of many NGO programs in Slovenia (CIVICUS CivilSociety Index, US AID Sustainability Index, Cross Border Mediationtraining programs, establishment of the Association of leaders ofThird Sector etc). He actively participated in numerous internationalevents and acts as a mediator and a mediation coach, as wellas asylum seekers counselor and children advocate. Šporar is thepresident of the Slovenian Union of Mediation Organizations (ME-DIOS) and a member of European Economic and Social Committee– EESC where he represents Slovenian NGOs.277

CivilSociety- alwaysa goodthing?There is plentyof “bad”civil society–xenophobic,political andnationalisticgroupsthat fit thediscourseperfectly.Content – notform – shouldbe the thingthat matter in2009 meansRafal Pankowski

Civil Society - always a good thing?We are all committed to the idea of civil society. We look to civil societyto provide a model of social organization which would satisfyour individual and collective goals. We heard it many times. Togetherwith democratization, Europeanization and human rights, civil society is a notionwhich arouses respect and sympathy across Europe. Indeed, civil societyin post-communist Central and Eastern Europe has a special role to play in theongoing reconstruction of the system. We should assist it and help it becomestronger and more effective: in this way we help the societies who had sufferedfrom political oppression and social underdevelopment. That is the standarddiscourse we are all too familiar with.A question can be asked, however, is civil society always a good thing? In otherwords, is it necessarily a force for the good? Can there be instances where civilsociety itself can be seen as a part of the problem rather than of the solution?Let me add, I do not mean the marginal cases of corruption or political manipulationwhich happen in civil society networks. That is, in a way, normal andgoes down to imperfect human nature. Civil society is composed of humansIf civil society is understoodbroadly as a mode ofsocial self-organization,a platform for collectiveaction based on sharedgoals and ideas outside ofstate institutions, then manyof the largest civil societyphenomena in Centraland Eastern Europe arehardly compatible with thedemocratic ideal at all.and it would be highly surprising if it were freeof certain sins which are typical features of anysociety and any social enterprise.What I have in mind, is not the individual shortcomingsof isolated organizations or individualsinvolved, but a more general point about civilsociety being part of the problem.Andrzej Waskiewicz writes: ‘The weakness of civilsociety in post-communist countries is widely attributedto the burden of their past. However,not all social and political apathy can be explainedby that, nor do the hardships of everyday life provide a better or morecomplete explanation’. I would add that many of civil society’s problems havedeep roots in its very heart.My main field of expertise as a social scientist but also as a civil society activistis the subject-matter of racism, xenophobia and nationalism. The relationshipbetween the idea of civil society and nationalism in Eastern Europe is rathercomplex and I don’t want to discuss its long history here.If civil society is understood broadly as a mode of social self-organization, aplatform for collective action based on shared goals and ideas outside of stateinstitutions, then many of the largest civil society phenomena in Central andEastern Europe are hardly compatible with the democratic ideal at all. The socialmovement around Radio Maryja in Poland has a plethora of institutionalizedexpressions. Besides its media operation, it consists of foundations, educationalinstitutions, associations and fund-raising initiatives, all the standard elements ofcivil society activism. It involves and mobilizes several hundred thousand people.At the same time, it is openly hostile to pluralist democracy, minority rights,and tolerance. It is radically nationalistic and outspokenly anti-Semitic.The All-Polish Youth (Mlodziez Wszechpolska) is a nationalist youth organization.279

Civil Society - always a good thing?Its tradition goes back to the 1920s and 1930s, today it is largely composed ofskinheads. It is responsible for violent attacks against its opponents and againstminorities. It has served as a support pool for the extreme-right political party,the League of Polish Families, which until not long ago was a part of the Polishgovernment and which still controls Polish state TV. At the same time, the All-Polish Youth declares itself to be no more no less a non-profit educational nongovernmentalorganization, caring for the patriotic education of its members,looking after national heritage, and conducting other noble activities. It hasduly applied for the official public benefit status under Polish NGO law. RomanGiertych, its founder and long-time leader, referred to the All-Polish Youth as awonderful example of civil society flourishing in Poland. Can we really acceptthe extreme-nationalist skinheads as yet another expression of civil society?Wouldn’t the ideal of ‘civil society’ lose much of its moral high ground if we aresatisfied with such a purely technical procedural approach?Nationalist movements such as the All-Polish Youth or Radio Maryja preach hostilityto democracy – therefore we can fairly easily distinguish them from themore genuine expressions of civil society attached to democracy and humanrights.Things become more problematic, however, when the radical right-wing groupslearn the language of democracy and human rights and employ it routinely togain international legitimacy and to advance their nationalist agenda. The furtherEast we go, the more often we encounter such linguistic confusion, to thepoint where we can doubt the usefulness of the civil society concept as such.notion of democracy isnational rather than uni-state remains the mainthe highest form of humanto Soviet federalism.Across Eastern Europe thecommonly interpreted inversal terms. The nationframeof reference andorganization, as opposedThe notion ofcitizenship, too, canbe employed inways which are notreally compatiblewith human rightsideals.The notion of citizenship,too, can be employed inways which are not reallycompatible with humanrights ideals. The focuson shared citizenship in ademocratic polity is fine, when access to citizenship is not denied. Look at Latvia,a European Union member state, to witness a very different reality.The ideological notion of Europe, so central to contemporary civil society discoursein our region, has had some disturbing connotations in history, associatedwith colonialism and so-called Euro-centrism. Today it may be used tolegitimize exclusion of those without Schengen passports. It also serves as a justificationof quasi-racist attitudes towards those cultures which are symbolicallyplaced outside of the construct of European civilization, not least the Russianculture.Are we not easily manipulated by the rhetoric of civil society and Europeanizationor Westernization? In Moldova it often means little more than Romanization,a unification with the neighboring Romania on the basis of ethnic ties. It alsomeans a symbolic ethnic cleansing and a depreciation of minority traditions inone of the most multi-cultural countries of Eastern Europe. But a very large partof civil society in Moldova, sponsored by Western donors, subscribe to the idea280

Civil Society - always a good thing?of Westernization as Romanization.The Ukrainian Orange Revolution was seen as a perfect expression of civil societyin the making and it was received enthusiastically by Polish and Westernpublic opinion. Today we see, things have been rather more complicated andwe understand that the discourse of a democratic civil society is often employedby interest groups that have little time for authentic grass-roots democracyor for minority rights.In today’s Russia, civil society activists and human rightsdefenders frequently find themselves in an exotic alliancewith National-Bolsheviks waving a flag combining thesymbols of the hammer and sickle with the swastika. It isanother sad example of civil society becoming a ratherambiguous concept or, paradoxically, becoming a rhetoricaltool of essentially anti-democratic, even pro-totalitarian,social forces.Would it notmake sense todispose of thenotion of civilsociety as anunequivocallypositive(progressive)phenomenon?As we see, East European civil society comes in differentshapes and colors, not all of them necessarily likable. As we know, AntonioGramsci famously analyzed civil society as a field of struggle for hegemony,whose outcome can never be taken for granted. Would it not make sense todispose of the notion of civil society as an unequivocally positive (progressive)phenomenon? Perhaps we can do without such a focus on civil society as asolution to social problems. Would it not be wiser to be more cautious and morebrave at the same time: to go beyond the formalistic approach to civil societyas such, with its ritualized rhetoric framework, and to look at specific expressionsof civic activism, to identify those initiatives which genuinely promote the goodvalues such as human dignity, equality, tolerance and anti-racism or, dare Isay, healthy cosmopolitanism? Whether or not we would define them as ‘civilsociety’, is in my view secondary.Rafal Pankowskiis the author of Neo-Fascism in WesternEurope (Polish Academy of Sciences: 1998) and Racism and Popular Culture(Trio, Warsaw: 2006). He has written widely on racism and nationalism for publicationsincluding The Economist, Index on Censorship and Searchlight. Aresident of Warsaw, he is the Deputy Editor of Nigdy Wiecej (“Never Again”)magazine and a research program coordinator at the Collegium Civitas inWarsaw.281

2 voices from the sidelinesFor Rayna Gavrilova, the Sofia demonstrations of early 09raised questions about distribution of labor between formalcivil society organization and informal groups, while forMilena Leneva the social network activism proved that noteveryone is apathetic.

2 voices from the sidelinesLast week I went out to protest. The protest was organized by students, environmentalist,mothers, and farmers. All of them had different reasons to beangry with the state. I was angry that our government failed us yet again,by proving to be the only European government totally dependent for naturalgas supplies on one country: Russia. Probably James Chowning Davies quotedin a Transitions Online article 1 was right: we have started believing, naively, thatwe live in normal democratic states where the interest of citizens and marketrules frame our governments. And when we are betrayed we become veryangry. I stayed at the sidelines: supporting fully the requests of the environmentalists,harboring sympathy for the students with no clue what the mothers andfarmers wanted.The protest turned ugly because extremists usurped it. There were claims thatsome of them were paid to do so. Some participants in past protests declaredthe meeting a failure because it didn’t have clear objectives. True. The organizersclaimed that they were notpolitical. I strongly disagreed - ofcourse they were political, justnot partisan. By claiming beingnon-political you leave all theimportant stuff to the politiciansthat everybody hates. The levelof organization was mediocre. Ididn’t see many registered civilsociety organizations helpingthe organizers: they have otherstrategies how to work for thepublic good. The trade unionssneered. The official student organizationswithdrew the morningof the protest - God knewwhy.Last week I also read a text bya Bulgarian sociologist, commentingon national data froma major representative survey ofEuropean values. He had entitledhis text “A-Sociality”. He sawin the responses no appreciation,readiness, motivation andpractice of anything collective,outside of the family - the No. 1value for Bulgarians. Zero solidarity,zero participation, zero trust.He saw no society and statedthe obvious: if there is no societythere could be no civil society.And then staying at the sidelinesof the protest and in front of myNational protest in front of the Bulgarian Parliament, January 20091 www.tol.cz/look/TOL/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=304&NrSection=2&NrArticle=20303283

2 voices from the sidelinescomputer (before and after) I saw civil society’s new avatar: Civil Society 2.0.Out of the 3000 protesters at the Parliament Square 2000 had arrived when mobilizedthrough a Facebook group. The mothers came mobilized by BGMama,the biggest internet forum of young mothers (and also older mothers, women ingeneral, and effectively, anyone who cares).Yesterday the protest-Spontaneous activismers were out there againneeds spearheads.but in much smaller num-bers - 500, may be. ThisWhat will be thetime I knew where thebig NGOs were: they hadrelationship betweenformed a coalition, pretheintelligent,pared a document andconvinced all the parties motivated, persistent, in the Parliament (bothruling and opposition) to professional NGOs sign a joint declarationblaming the practice of and the angry buying votes and endorsingspecific reforms of the activists? election law. TI, OSI, theCenter for Liberal Strate-gies, the Institute for MarketEconomy among others were pressing the establishment from the other side- and exactly at the same time. Are we witnessing a new stage in the life of civilsociety, entailing this time a division of labor?Labor is rarely aesthetic, regular efforts are needed to prevent it from turningugly. Such coveted spontaneous activism needs spearheads - how and fromwhere? What will be the relationship between the intelligent, motivated, persistent,professional NGOs and the angry activists? Something is brewing in Riga,Vilnius and Reykjavik. Greek farmers are blocking the border. Is this civic activism?There are clearly many questions - join us in search of some answers!Rayna Gavrilovais Executive Directorof the Trustfor Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe, based at the Sofiaoffice.284

2 voices from the sidelinesTwo weeks ago I did not know we could achieve this.Major protests have been organized in Bulgaria. Eco-activists, students,mothers and agriculture workers all have their own demands on the government.Multitudes of people went to the streets and in front of the Parliament todeclare their needs. These protests were interesting in many aspects, however,we will focus your attention on only one of them – the creation of the onlinenetwork behind the protests.How did it all start?It was Monday and Teodor, one of the Bulgarian ecological activists, cameup with the idea that it would be good to give an opportunity to people whowanted to participate in the protest but didn’t have the possibility; to expressthis support somehow.Two creative individuals found two programmers - one of them studying andworking outside of Bulgaria. A web site was developed overnight and all of theparticipants had to work throughout the day. Initially the idea was only to countthe visitors who declared support for the protest in front the Bulgarian Parliament.We decided that it would be optimal if everybody browsing the site wereable to read the exact demands of the protestors. It soon became evidentthat all the visitors to the site had to be able to declare not only their support,but also express opinions and give suggestions to the Bulgarian government,Parliament and directly to the protestors. So the web site didn’t end up only acounting machine of numbers of supporters, but also became a place for sharingopinions and discussing them.285

2 voices from the sidelinesWhat actually happened?There are some extremely interesting facts about this site.1.Knowledge about the site was disseminated exclusively from person toperson. There was no time for optimization. Less than 1 percent of thepeople found the site trough Google or other search engines. About 80000 unique visitors browsed the site about 450 000 times, knowing about it onlythrough their friends and referring sites.2.Perhaps the chosen site domain (www.feelfriendly.com) was not a veryappropriate name for the site. However as this domain was alreadyavailable for us from another project idea, we decided to use it here,pressured by the short time we had ahead of the protests. Now there are alot of people in Bulgaria and around the worldwho know about this protest site, but few ofthem know its name.3.This site became more than the intendedcounter of supporters – it becamea parallel demonstration relatednot only to theMost visitorsprotest. Most visi-t o r sparticipated in theparticipated in the d i s -discussions andcussions and overover 3 days there3days there were were more thanmore than 1800 1800 commentscomments and and suggestions. suggestions.4.Most of the people signed their names even though this was not a requirementon the site, showing that they wanted to stand behind theirposition.10% of the traffic was from abroad, demonstrating that Bulgariansabroad were able to show their support through the site.5.Aboutmany people volunteered with diverse support throughout thewhole project. We received numerous offers of volunteer help and especiallywith the mammoth task of classifying and analyzing the multi-6.Finally,tudes of comments on the site, many strangers helped out.What are the main conclusions?Social networks work. The distribution over less than 15 hours to about 35 000unique visitors making about 120 000 hits the first day the site existed, is amazingwhen taking into account the modest number of Bulgarians all over the world.This experience demonstrates that even without any other means of communicationone interesting idea can reach thousands of people in a very shortperiod of time - even before the official media can react and follow suit.Milena Lenevaworks for Future Nowin Bulgaria286

eParticipation- a newsphere of NGOactivity?eDemocracy is hard form a political and socialpoint of view rather than a technical one: visibilityand impact is posed against risk of governmenthigh jacking and legitimacy problems,discusses Simon and Matej Delakorda.

eParticipation - a new sphere of NGO activity?Anew sphere of NGO activity has emerged in recent years in Slovenia, asa number of NGOs have started to take a more web-based approach.A number of on-line projects have been introduced, such as the SlovenianCivil Society e-Participation web service 1 , The Citizen’s Forum 2 , the NGOe-Participation portal available during the Slovenian EU Council Presidency 3 ,The Citizen’s forum for the European elections 2009 4 , Open-source NGOs e-Participationplatform 5 and the e-participation platform for NGO involvement inestablishing the Law on voluntary work 6 . These projects aim to strengthen civildialogue and utilize the internet to support participatory democracy.Maximizing the impact of this new arena has understandably led to some challengesand dilemmas, for the NGO sector, which we will outline here and will,hopefully, form the basis of further discussion.The real challengeA number of ad-hoc e-participation projects and successfully implementedapplications are not seeing much traffic or interaction because internet usersare simply not pay-ing attention to them.There are three main A number of ad-hoc reasons for this. Firstly,the application is inten- eParticipation projects tionally or unintentionallybadly promoted to and successfully the general public orfocus groups. Governimplementedapplicationsment institutions are notare not seeing muchusually keen to promote on-line participationtraffic or interactiontools which are alreadyavailable. They fear abecause internet userspotential rush to particiaresimply not payingpate and managementproblems. NGOs, on the attention to them. other hand, often donot have enough re-sources to promote theire-participation projectson a larger scale, particularlythrough traditional mass media.Secondly, the eParticipation projects are focused on relatively minor or highlytechnical expert issues, which may be irrelevant to the general public and theirquality of life. If this is the case, NGOs have a duty to explain these complex issues,relate them to everyday life experience. They have to explain to peoplewhy the issue is relevant to them and how their participation can improve thesituation. Never-the-less, a much more effective way to rally people arounde-participation is to base projects on public problems and policy issues, whichdirectly concern a larger proportion of the population.Thirdly, there is often little evidence of how these e-participation projects will impactpublic opinion or decision-making processes. Potential users do not knowhow the results of e-participation are going to shape policy issues, problems orpublic perception. Improving this situation requires feedback from governmentalinstitutions and politicians, monitoring any impact on legislation or changesin public perception of a particular issue and the degree of mass media recognition.E-participation is therefore often more of a political and social challengethan a technological one.1 www.e-participacija.si/en2 www.epractice.eu/en/cases/citizensforum073 www.predsedovanje.si/en4 www.evropske-volitve.si5 www.okno.cnvos.si6 www.sodeluj.net/pic-ceetrust/288

eParticipation - a new sphere of NGO activity?Sustainable successNGO e-participation projects, although not for profit ormarket-oriented, are often very demanding in terms ofboth organizational and financial resources. Open-sourceInternet applications and user friendly web 2.0 applicationsenable NGOs to establish their own e-participationapplications very quickly and with minimum costs. Whetheror not an NGO successfully implements e-participation,however, depends on its mobilization capacity, decisionmakingimpact, community building, technical security,personal data protection, moderation of on-line communication,public promotion, monitoring techniques andevaluation methods.Open-sourceInternetapplications anduser friendly web2.0 applicationsenable NGOsto establishtheir owne-participationapplicationsquickly and withminimum costs.Most of this know-how is needed in order to establish a proper social, communicationand political environment for e-participation applications. For example,when moderating an on-line policy forum or consultation, a specific set of rulesusually applies to enable deliberate democratic communication and startingquestions. Data is usually available to enable informed debate and messagesfrom participants are summarized in a report at the end.NGOs facilitating e-participation projects often need to have at their disposalexpert and in-depth understanding of complex decision-making, policy-makingand public opinion forming processes, especially at the level of EU institutions.Furthermore, new skills are required when facilitating and building up socialnetworks and communities as a part of e-participation projects. This includesusing platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Flicker and providingmessages through different formats and features on-line. As the most successfule-participation projects are the ones which are most sustainable, NGOs haveto provide long-term, diverse human and technological input to keep up withrapidly evolving Internet technology.It has been suggestedthat the democraticpotential of the Internetis strengthening thepolitical power ofthose who are alreadyinformation-rich andempowered.Coordinating off-line and on-lineparticipationThe digital divide is often cited as a barrier to e-participation.Older generations are generally less likelyto have the proper skills required to use new informationand communication technologies. Marginalizedgroups within society often do not have proper Internetaccess, allowing it to be dominated by white,well-educated people.It has been suggested that the democratic potential of the Internet is strengtheningthe political power of those who are already information-rich and empowered.The Internet therefore supports the existing balance of power in favorof political elites. For these reasons it is vital that e-participation projects implementedby NGOs play a part in real-time processes and are connected to liveevents and discussions in order to enable the participation of people who areunable to utilize the latest technology. For example, the on-line Citizens forumfor the European elections 2009 enabled e-participation through a system of289

eParticipation - a new sphere of NGO activity?e-points, positioned at live public events. Facilitated by a moderator, these e-points provided access to laptops. Paper questionnaires were also distributedwith the results later published in an on-line debate.Legitimatizing participationNGOs deliver both top-down and bottom-up e-participation projects and applications.The first are usually co-financed by government institutions on a local,national or EU level. The second are usually co-financed by the NGO foundations,networks or implemented by NGOs themselves.As top-down e-participation projects such as e-consultations, e-panels, participatorybudgeting and e-legislation are promoted and supported by governmentinstitutions, they have a higher degree of public visibility. They are alsomore likely to impact policy or legislation directly.On the other hand, because these government institutions have a greater degreeof ownership over the project, they can hijack the e-participation processand adapt it to their specific goals. These are often related to legitimizing governmentalagendas, as was the case with the NGO e-Participation portal forthe Slovene EU Council Presidency.Bottom up e-participation projects such as e-activism and e-campaigning areused by NGOs to coordinate, organize, finance and engage the public. Theyaim to mobilize and gain support or deliver a political message as a part ofthe case with the Open-tion platform.political campaigns, as wassource NGOs e-Participa-Top downe-participationis more efficientGrass-roots activities like e-petitions, e-questionnaires,Facebook groups andbut bottom upblogs do not usually representpart of a formal or insti-tutionalized policy-makinge-participation ismore legitimate.process and are thereforeproviding much needed inputfrom citizens in relationto government institutions,based on the principle of participatory democracy. This can, however, sometimesresult in conflict with a government or a stalemate in the decision-makingprocess. In order to overcome this kind of dichotomy, a new NGO participatorycommunity multi-media project in Slovenia has been exploring new possibilitiesfor video e-participation 2.0, such as Studio 12) 7 . Top down e-participation ismore efficient but bottom up e-participation is more legitimate.Looking for success in eDemocracyNGO eParticipation projects in Slovenia clearly demonstrate the democraticvalue of the Internet, especially when providing information and data relatedto decision-making process. This was the case with the Slovene Civil SocietyeParticipation web service which provided information and opportunities forcitizens and NGOs to e-participate in different policy-making processes. Meanwhile,the NGO e-Participation portal for the EU Council Presidency enableddocument provision, raising EU policy awareness, strengthening transparencyand enhancing public visibility of the Slovene Presidency.On the other hand the challenges of justifying such initiatives as forms of e-democracy and funding still remain. Firstly, meeting social expectations related7 www.s12.si/content/view/95/104/290

eParticipation - a new sphere of NGO activity?to the depth of on-line discussions and deliberation is demanding additionalefforts in perceiving Internet technology as a truly interactive technology withindecision-making processes.Secondly, the political expectations behind providing concrete evidence ofthe inclusion of citizen and NGO contributions into final decisions, documents orpolicies are often not realized. For this purpose a proper evaluation frameworkor methodology for the effects of e-democracy should be created. The latteris especially important when reflecting on imaginary and fake top down e-participationprojects conducted by governments and public relations agencies.The future of NGO eParticipationA number of challenges therefore remain for NGOs keen to get involved ineParticipation. They must develop effective ways of linking on-line and off-lineparticipation, thereby tackling the digital divide. They must also reflect criticallyon institutional, top-down public relations and technocratic-oriented attemptsat e-democracy introduced by political elites and governments.Successful examples of NGO eParticipation need to be promoted to the generalpublic through the media, thereby creating moreeParticipation needs public awareness. Transparency of eParticipation,to become personal. inclusiveness and personal data protection must beeParticipation secured in order to build confidence and the conditionsnecessary for e-participation need to be cul-initiatives clearly comewith more political andtivated further. NGOs need to create focused andsocial dilemmas thansustainable e-participation projects and cementtechnological onestheir role as e-participation facilitators.Finally NGOs need to successfully manage their eParticipation resources. Theyneed to build up a catalogue of professional skills in on-line engagement andparticipatory process management. They need to accept that e-participationneeds to appeal to the general public as a means of improving quality of life.E-participation needs to become personal. e-participation initiatives clearlycome with more political and social issues and dilemmas than technologicalones. This gives debates on e-participation additional relevance, as they areframed and conceptualized by debates on the future development of politicaldemocracy.Simon Delakordais a full time e-democracy/e-participation practitioner& researcher and managing director of the Institute for Electronic Participation in Ljubljana.Starting in 2000, he has participated in most of the early internet democracyprojects conducted within the university and NGO sectors in Slovenia. He is the authorand co-author of a number of articles and case studies and is a conference speakeron democracy, political participation, active citizenship and on-line government. Hereceived has a political science master including a thesis on e-participation.Matej Delakordais a project manager and IT expert.In 2007 he obtained his University Degreein Sociology at University of Ljubljana. He is a president of management board ofInstitute for Electronic Participation and a project manager in Studio 12 which is aSlovene multimedia Center and Internet TV station. Among his bigger IT projectswere: non-governmental organizations portal for the period of Slovene EU Presidency,web portal for democratic e-participation of Slovenian citizens, NGO’svideo portals and multimedia production that covers issues of ecology, societyand human relationships.291

A new dissident civil society:hot art as activism againstPoland’s “moral majority”rts and culture engages and touches people – and create a space for soialaction! Tomek Kitlinski is searching for a much needed new dissidence inentral and Eastern Europe, working for true inclusion, tolerance and hospitaltytowards others.

A new dissident civil society: hot art as activism against Poland’s “moral majority”Civil society is sick. It could be saved by art with a cause. Activist art thatcares for minorities, women, immigrants, the disabled and the poor.Aesthetics – if socially engaged and interactive with the audience –drives social change, fights fears and empowers the powerless. In Poland visualartists, in particular those who are female and/or queer, are the new dissidents,come to rescue the Tocquevillian ‘art of associating’ that is civil society. Theirsis an art which serves public interests, it is critical, disturbing and sensuous. Onedetects a blurring of the borders between culture and activism. Art is a formidableforce in energizing people, setting us free, enabling us to create and acttogether.Rights Movement in Eastern Europe’s Civil SocietyI would like to discuss and show you images of socially committed art – that is onetype of socially committed art which I am personally most involved with, that relatedto equality, women rights and rights of sexual minorities. Examples includethe lesbian and gay visibility campaign Let Us Be Seen authored by Karolina Bregula,and Dorota Nieznalska’s photographs about sadomasochism in politics.Both, alongside many other feminist and queer works, featured in Pawel Leszkowicz’sexhibition calling for Love and Democracy. I would like to demonstratehow transgender Rafalala’s social performance at the parliamentary elections,testifies to transphobia at the very heart of our political system. There is alsothe leftist artistic milieu of Krytyka Polityczna with its ‘Applied Social Arts’ for theeconomically excluded, as well as initiatives set up by the youngest generationof Polish artists.These include alternativeNGOs,squat initiativesand street artistsacross Polandacting againstinjustice, amongthem is urbanguerilla artist SzymonPietrasiewicz,26, who asa protest againstconsumerism, exposedhimself ina shopping mallwith a label reading‘Sale: humanbeing - 9.99 zlotys.’Szymon Pietrasiewicz’s performance ‘Sale: human being - 9.99 zlotys’.Photo by Dorota Awiorko, Dziennik WschodniArt to Counter Uncivil SocietyUncivil society is growing in Eastern Europe, the rise of casino capitalism (and293

A new dissident civil society: hot art as activism against Poland’s “moral majority”unconcern for its impending crisis), the far right, hatred of the supposed others,ultra-nationalism and prejudices. I’m an out gay in Poland and what distressesme is the hegemony of this uncivil society, the violence, misogyny and anti-Semitism as well as xenophobia and homophobia. 1 Excrement and acid arethrown at sexual minorities in Eastern Europe. On July 22, 2006, bags of faeceswere pelted at gay pride in Riga, the capital of Latvia. In the old Polish capitalof Cracow, caustic acid was tossed at the Parade of Equality, which championsthe rights of queers on May 7, 2004 – one week after Poland joined the EuropeanUnion. “Fags to the gas!,” “We’ll do to you what Hitler did to the Jews!” -far-right protestors shouted at feminist and gay marchers in Poland. Civil societydoesn’t do enough to counter prejudices and I for one am very disappointedin it. How can we regain civil society, rethink and recreate it? We need art. Artintervenes, criticizes and creates. Culture has a rebellious edge, it sublimatesand runs counter to the dehumanization of minorities.Art with Messages against IntoleranceThe portraits of Let Us Be Seen were of thirty real same-sex couples standingin the street and holding handsand they werepart of a socialaction orga- nized by then o n - g o v e r n - mental organization‘Cam- paign AgainstHomophobia’.In the streets, theportraits were i m m e d i a t e l ydestroyed by members of thefar-right. In manycities, they werecensored and banned by localauthorities, but the touring exhibitionin the galler-ies was a popularsuccess and en-joyed some significanceboth in the media andartistically. Let UsBe Seen not onlyunleashed phys-ical violence andmedia hostility, but also sparked apublic debate in Poland aboutsame-sex love and queer rights.Art functioned as civil society.Karolina Bregula, Let Us Be Seen, Campaign against HomophobiaAlso part of the Love and Democracy exhibition, was the photographic workof Dorota Nieznalska. Her work Passion is an exploration of masculinity, violenceand suffering, and consists of a video close-up of an exercising body builder’sface and a cross on which a photograph of a penis has been placed. Membersof a far-right party, the League of Polish Families, physically attacked this youngfemale artist and then they brought charges against her for “offending religiousfeelings” and Nieznalska was sentenced to community work and banned fromleaving the country or, as the judge phrased it, sentenced to “half a year of therestriction of freedom. In Love and Democracy, art spoke the idiom of love and1 For an analysis of anti-Semitism and art events (exhibitions, performances) tooppose it in Poland see http://www.jewcy.com/post/still_racist_after_all_these_years.294

A new dissident civil society: hot art as activism against Poland’s “moral majority”Maciej Osika’s transgender self-portraits in the Love and Democracy exhibitionit spoke the idiom of protest, with style and sensuality. Dorota Nieznalska representsa new dissidence against the anti-modernism of today’s Poland, againstviolent, claustrophobic and repressive fundamentalism, without religion as innerexperience.Films of Resistance to RepressionA documentation of the aggression against human rights and freedom of lovein the Polish streets in 2005 and 2006 was provided by the films of AleksandraPolisiewicz, Ewa Majewska and Joanna Rajkowska. The women directors showthe battle surrounding the marches for equality and the counter-culture club,Le Madame. The Reanimation of Democracy – the March for Equality MovesOn 2 (2005) documents the demonstration in Warsaw supporting the bannedequality march brutally suppressed in Poznan on 19 November 2005, where sixtypeople – feminist and gay marchers - were arrested. The march took place inaccordance with the constitution and the ban issued by the city authoritiesturned out to be unlawful. Another documentary film, made by the Sirens TVgroup 3 presented the march for equality banned by the authorities in Warsawon 11 June 2005. Within the same trend of spontaneous social protest in thename of a free public, and at the same time alternative, space, there wasthe defense of the Le Madame club in April 2006. Le Madame was the centreof the culture of political and moral opposition in Warsaw propagating artisticfreedom. It became the symbol of an alternative new and young left, in a cityruled by the far right and was, therefore, closed on an administrative pretext.The last dramatic phase of the defense of the subversive Le Madame clubwas demonstrated by the outstanding film of Joanna Rajkowska. These films2 Feminist theorist/activist Ewa Majewska and artist Aleksandra Polisiewicz made the film The Reanimationof Democracy – the March for Equality Moves On.3 The feminist art collective Sirens TV consists of Ewa Majewska, Aleksandra Polisiewicz, and EllynSouthern.295

A new dissident civil society: hot art as activism against Poland’s “moral majority”by women directors Rajkowska, Majewska and Polisiewicz participating in Loveand Democracy represented art as an alternative civil society of social document,opposing the false objectivity of the official media. As Jan Puhl of DerSpiegel writes:“And so in the meantime, a little Polish gay movement changes peu à peuinto a citizens’ initiative against intolerance”.Intimate democracy begins in the psycheand ends in the reform of civil society. Theart of intimate democracy, according toPawel Leszkowicz, strives to integrate theprivate with the public, establish a spaceof communication. In this sense, this is anart that healingly touches upon Polish democracy’sdeepest ailment, goes beyonddiscrimination and this art of intimate democracyinspires the praxis of a self-governingand pluralistic civil society. Loveand Democracy included hetero- andhomoportraits by Izabela Gustowska andKatarzyna Korzeniecka, demonstratingthe diversity of love. My own installationat the exhibition combined the photographsof the Jewish and queer places inLublin, Prague, and Irkutsk. Together withPawel Leszkowicz, I argue that becauseof the censorship imposed on sexualityconsciousart and women’s and minorityrights, a second revolution must happenin Poland. The first one in the 1980s, underthe banner of Solidarity, was conductedin the name of a free nation and the collapseof communism. The group identityIzabela Gustowska, L’Amour Passion fromof Poles stands behind it. A second revolution,equally peaceful, should happen inthe Love and Democracy exhibitionthe name of the freedom of the individual and minority rights, opposing thedanger of fundamentalism. 4Minority for MinorityPoland and other Eastern European countries are in the grip of the ideologyof the “pure” nation and the militant party, both exclude otherness instead ofchoosing democracy as a “heterogeneous way of life” 5 . Another cult is fundamentalism,religion-turned-ideology. A pressing issue is liberalizing religion here;if non-integrist, faith-based activism could contribute to civil society. Faith andDemocracy is a necessity! An example of this is the collaboration of feminists,gays, and the reform Jewish community Beit in Poland, when Dota Szymborska-Dyrda of this liberal Jewish group supported the queer rights movement underthe motto “minority for minority.” It is imperative to remember here the still un-4 For the tradition and the cutting edge of feminist/lgbtq art see “Feminist Revolt: Censorship ofWomen’s Art in Poland” http://bad.eserver.org/reviews/2005/leszkowicz.html, and “The Queer Storyof Polish Art and Subjectivity” http://www.artmargins.com/content/feature/leszkowicz.htm.5 Claude Lefort’s approach to the idea of democracy.296

A new dissident civil society: hot art as activism against Poland’s “moral majority”mourned annihilation of Poland’s Jews in the Holocaust, and the mass expulsionof them in 1968. In popular perceptions, Jews, Roma and queers are stillbeyond the pale. That’s why the younger generation of Polish Jews initiatedShterndlekh/Meryba. A Magazine of the Minorities about Culture to which Icontribute. It warns against the anti-Semitism and homophobia in Poland 6 presentsfeminist and queer ideas and goes back to the transgressive figure of awoman tzaddik 7 . Textually, but also visually, with its artwork by dissident artists,Shterndlekh/Meryba embody the spirit of revolt.The idea of hospitality is of primary importance in Eastern Europe in the contextof xenophobia. If not, civil society is in danger. We are in danger. To activatethe popular base of civil society, we should work for an Eastern Europe of Hos-Tomek Kitlinski, My Country Today6 Texts by Darek Galecki, Dota Szymborska-Dyrda, Przemyslaw Pilarski, Ewa Majewska, and editorin-chief,Anna Cialowicz.7 Drama by Anna Cialowicz.297

A new dissident civil society: hot art as activism against Poland’s “moral majority”pitality. All citizens and immigrants are part of civil society, and should be accordinglyinvolved, engaged, and committed. Our participation in civil societyis the human value of hospitality to others.Transgender and Feminist ActivismDemocratic hospitality must extend to transgender persons. When transgenderRafalala came to vote in Poland’s parliamentary elections on October 21,2007, she was denied her ballot right. At a Warsaw polling station Rafalala presentedher ID which showed a man Rafal, and didn’t match her gender. Forthe election, she wore a blond wig and a black dress. The returning officer said,‘You’re not the man on the ID photo’, and didn’tallow Rafalala to cast her ballot. ‘I live in a countrywhere I have to stop being myself in order tovote’, Rafalala commented on her blog. The denialof Rafalala’s right to vote was headline newsacross Poland and was an outstanding performanceart piece for the rights of transgenderpersons in this country. A one-person example ofartistic civil society in action!Together with Rafalala many of Poland’s scholars,students, and even pupils are turning intocivic activists. Women public intellectuals MariaJanion, Magdalena Sroda, Kazimiera Szczuka,and Agnieszka Graff, whose essay is posted onthis discussion forum, spearhead dissent. JanionFeminist author/activist Kazimiera Szczuka during her(b. 1926) has changed the Polish humanities,2000 Manifa: “Human Rights are Women’s Rights”edited Transgressions, an influential series of anthologiesof literature and art and published adozen of her own books. The recent ones analyze misogyny and anti-Semitismin Poland. Her collaborator, Kazimiera Szczuka, feminist activist and author ofthe book Cinderella, Frankenstein and Other Women, devised the women’sManifa demonstration which is an artistic celebration of femininity and a powerfulcall for women’s rights in a country where abortion is illegal. These womenprovide a voice of freedom in contemporary Poland.Feminoteka is a collective and website that works against misogyny in Poland.It provides a free forum of expression and action for women and their malesupporters. Its projects include initiatives for reproductive rights and against domesticviolence, The Virtual Museum of Women’s History and publishing of artpostcards with feminist messages.New SpacesAlongside feminists, Krytyka Polityczna is a journal, publishing house and environmentfor progressive younger sociologists, literary critics and activists. Asa hub, Krytyka Polityczna plays a crucial role in fostering alternative thought,spark debate and nourish engagement in Polish society. Through poetry thatbreaks conventions and establish new language, through visual art, new artisticspaces and alternative theatre, artists devise ever new ways of organizingsocial gatherings to unleash the public power of art.298

A new dissident civil society: hot art as activism against Poland’s “moral majority”An urban guerilla artist in the city of Wroclaw called himself none other thanTruth. His are interventions into the cityscape with statements of unconcealement,truth, aletheia. Be it in gentrified or run-down parts of Wroclaw, Truth introducesangry additions to annoy us out of our complacency. That is how art performsnew dissidence inPoland.Alternative theatrecompanies turned intoeducational centerswhen the former multiculturalismof Poland isrecalled. 8 To this traditionbelong the Borderlandsin Sejny and TheBrama City Centre - NNTheatre in Lublin, fromwhich young activiststook the step to found anew NGO Homo Faber,through the use of films,performances andworkshops which promotemulticulturalism,sexual rights and speakout against domesticStreet artist Truth’s interventions in the urban space of Wroclawviolence in the smallesttowns of Eastern Polandthey spread their message. The squat movement often cultivates pacifism, artistichandicraft and what is all too rare in this country, sexual education andworkshops promoting safer sex.As Jean-Paul Sartre argued, engaged art reveals the images which society triesto conceal from itself. Let Us Be Seen, Love and Democracy, Rafalala, KrytykaPolityczna, and the squat movement unleash artistic images which the mainstreamconceals, the diversity of gender identities, effective alternative identities,sex and warnings against exclusion. Alternative culture reveals truth aboutcivil society and about society as a whole. In today’s Poland, art stings those inpower out of their self-righteousness.Art Acts as DissidenceThe emerging civil society in the anti-totalitarian dissidence of Eastern Europewas also of cultural inspiration. Alternative theatre and art played a crucial partof the democratic opposition to Communism. In this context, the Committeeagainst the Repressions toward Conscription Objectors, founded in 1981, developedinto the Movement for Alternative Society. As one example of links to thismovement Theatre of the Eighth Day from Poznan was in opposition and thereforeexpelled under Communism, and one of its members was arrested whileparticipating in the feminist and gay March of Equality in 2005. An additionalhistoric example, the rise of human rights culture in the eighteenth century was8 For more on the theatre and art against xenophobia see “New Europe, Old Monsters” http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2005/73/kitlinski.html.299

A new dissident civil society: hot art as activism against Poland’s “moral majority”inspired by literature, in particular the novel 9 . The novel is an “emotional argumentfor democracy” because it “makes its readers more empathetic.” 10The critical work of a Polish-American artist, Krzysztof Wodiczko, is important as itmay be regarded as an element of transnational civil society to found a publicsphere which would cherish subjectivity. In 1985 Wodiczko projected the imageof a swastika on South Africa House in London as a protest to Apartheid, constructeda vehicle for the homeless in the United States and sculpted a caneThe Alien’s Spokesman by which a stranger, homeless or immigrant can communicateon the streets with passersby.Today’s Possibilities: Spaces for Art and DemocracyJeffrey C. Goldfarb presents human interaction in the alternative theatre underCommunism and on the Internet today: political autonomy can be generatedhere. In our ‘dark times,’ the ‘power of the powerless’ is created in small initiativesat the interface of art and activism. In comparison to radio or TV politics, Internet-mediatedpolitics, that of bloggers, is, according to Jeffrey C. Goldfarb,“more egalitarian, much less hierarchical, more deliberative… Online, there isan expectation of differences of opinion, and people work on respecting thedifferences and finding common ground. This has been apparent in the antiwarmobilization and in electoral organizing (in the United States). 11I envisage participatory art and society workshops for a very wide audience,including the underprivileged. The society/art projects could be happeningsimultaneously in democracy hubs/art venues and over the internet. Takingplace in both realities, this could energize the togetherness of being active, thatis civil society, aiming at becoming free. Simone de Beauvoir would not considerus free if others are unfree. Those without freedom, without rights, withoutpapers in the EU and globally, as well as Eastern Europe’s Arendtian consciouspariahs: women, Jews, Roma and queers.Art is altruism. Art involves a double movement, the self-expression of minoritiesand a de-egoization. Hélène Cixous demonstrates this in her interpretation ofthe work of Jewish/ Ukrainian/Brazilian writer Clarice Lispector: ‘one can onlyattain this right distance through a relentless process of de-selfing, a relentlesspractice of de-egoization.’ Art performs human rights, as activists/artists LoisKeidan and Lois Weaver put it. To borrow Elzbieta Matynia’s term, performativedemocracy. Simon Critchley defines it as “processes of democratization”, “providingconstant critical pressure upon the state, a pressure of emancipatoryintent.” That is how philosophy and art challenges closed structures, discrimination,and the sufferings of minorities, as recalled by Richard J. Bernstein.But for the time being, Poland is unjust, class-ridden, discriminatory, undemocratic,and, under the previous government anti-democratic. The transitionconfirmed the tyranny of the majority, which Tocqueville and Mill were alreadywarning us against in the nineteenth century. Majoritarian communism gaveway to majoritarian fundamentalism. In fact, pseudo-Communism gave wayto pseudo-Christianity. The French psychoanalyst and philosopher with roots9 Lynn Hunt, Inventing Human Rights. A History (New York and London: Norton, 2007).10 Hermione Lee reports on the social power of the novel in The New York Review of Books of May10, 2007.11 Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, The Politics of Small Things. The Power of the Powerless in Dark Times (Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 2006).300

A new dissident civil society: hot art as activism against Poland’s “moral majority”Wojciech Gilewicz, Photography from the Love and Democracy exhibitionin Bulgaria, Julia Kristeva is right about the amoralism of Eastern Europe: “theimmobilization in painful narcissism; the hellish complacency outside of time;social amoralism; and pauperization.” The evil responses to artistic expressionsmentioned in this text testify to this and misguided receptions of artists’ workhave led to extreme hatred, near riots and uncivil society.Art Events as Civil Society HubsThat’s why we need – here and now – art events as democracy hubs. Thoughplayful, art takes ideas seriously. And takes us, viewers/co-creators, seriouslytoo. Art is something of ourselves. The activist art of Let Us Be Seen, Love andDemocracy, Rafalala, Krytyka Polityczna, the street art and squat movementgive life to civil society.We urgently need a strong, ethically-committed, and inclusive civil society toinitiate citizens into self-associations of generosity. Art finds the means to makea critique of the system, Art affords insights into the body politic. Where EasternEurope painfully lacks community organizers, art establishes associations,teaches involvement, brings the form and force to be active. Art is at the verygrassroots and at the same time truly cosmopolitan. Art doesn’t take its eye offthe ball of society. Thanks to art, civil society could be closer to society itself –not in the trap of the normalizing mainstream. It is up to the people to constitutecivil society and to animate it. The alternative character ensures non-hierarchicalorganizations and engagement in the “other” social facts and aestheticforms. Art adds a sensual and social dimension to civil society and changesreality, doesn’t it?301

A new dissident civil society: hot art as activism against Poland’s “moral majority”Tomek Kitlinski isana u t h o r ,academic, activist, and, occasionally, tries to be an artist.As a student in Communist Poland, he was involved in theopposition’s alternative theatre movement. After 1989, hestudied at Gutenberg University in Mainz, the Courtauld Instituteof Art in London, and obtained his M. Phil. in the Studiesof Text and Image at Denis Diderot University - Paris 7where he worked with Julia Kristeva. Simultaneously, he developedhis performance art, presenting it at galleries andfestivals across Poland as well as publishing poetic proseParallel Lines and Love.Hate. He was a Fulbright scholarat the Transregional Center for Democratic Studies, NewSchool for Social Research in New York. Currently, Kitlinskiis lecturer and researcher at the Department of Philosophyand Sociology, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin,Poland. Kitlinski has published a number of academic, journalisticand literary texts.Tomek Kitlinski (to the right) and his partnerPawel Leszkowicz Let Us Be Seen, Campaignagainst Homophobia302

Give a Book for Christmas a short story by GeorgiGospodinovDecember 2008We enter December. At the far end of the month, Christmas shines hypnotically. The pre-holiday insanity willsoon rush over. The citizens, calm until yesterday, will turn into mad buyers. The traders already calculateprofits and rub their hands contentedly. Christmas looks more and more like a giant mall, like the Christmasbazaar at the National Palace of Culture in Sofia, like the crowded METRO, Billa… Christmas as a professionalholiday of the people in trade and retail business. Christmas as a promotion day.That is why I will hurry up to announce my small personal campaign. It is not sponsored by anybody, it is notbacked up by any institution. It doesn’t involve sending in text messages. Every tenth participant won’t winan automobile or a trip for two to a Turkish resort. It is not part of a promotional package. Let’s call it simply“Give a Book for Christmas”.Because giving a book as a present is a nice gesture. There is a certain taste and aesthetics in it. There isan ecology of the mind. I don’t know how to explain it. It is not like presenting someone with a deodorantor a car.Because the book is a very personal gift. Because you give words, you give a story. And, through the book,you say something to the person you give it to.Because the book is a slow gift, a gift that lasts. You do not use it up, drink it up or spray it up and throw itsempty packaging away. (This is also part of the ecology.) To give a book as a Christmas gift is somethingvery special. There is style and retro in it. Because Christmas is made of the books we have read, of thestories we have been told. I remember very clearly “The Little Match Girl” that I received as a child and thehidden tear-drop when I reread it. How would Christmas look like without this story. Or without the “Gifts ofthe Magi” by O.Henry. Or without Dickens where you can get lost time after time. Or without “Auggie Wren’sChristmas Story” by Paul Auster.I give this small personal campaign as a gift to all those who already wonder how to avoid giving the sameperfume, scarf, jewel as last year’s.I hope it will be read also by those who open mainly the financial pages, by the bank managers and companybosses. Surprise your employees for Christmas, give them a book as a present. Or add a book to allthe office things that you will be giving around the holiday.When a society is in a long and hard crisis, it first throws away what seems to be unnecessary and useless.Books and culture in general were easily recognized as the unnecessary expense. As something notamong the essential commodities, not of vital necessity. It seems to me now that we slowly begin to realizethe opposite. Books and culture are of vital necessity for every normal society. I believe that if more peoplegive each other books for Christmas, it will lessen a bit the disenchantment of the holiday. It will reduce thetotal amount of kitsch and will tone down the hysteria. It will distinguish between those who have a holidayand those who have a shopping day. Because Christmas is not a promotion but a gift and a miracle. And wecannot live without miracles. Especially now, especially here.Georgi Gospodinov(1968, Bulgaria) is authorof books of poetry,fiction, literary and cultural researches. His novel, “Natural Novel,” has been issuedsix times in Bulgaria and is published in 12 languages. The Times describes it as “humorous,melancholy and highly idiosyncratic”, according to Guardian, it is “bothearthy and intellectual”: http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/bulgaria/gospodg.htm. Gospodinov’s projects centered around memory and everyday lifein the recent past include “I’ve Lived Socialism. 171 personal stories” (2006, editor)and “Inventory Book of Socialism” (2006, co-author). Georgi Gospodinov is Ph.D.at the Institute for Literature; editor in Literaturen vestnik weekly and columnist in Dnevnikdaily.303

Bauman – End of the Orgyinterview by Tomasz Kwasniewski published in Polish in Gazeta Wyborcza,February 2009The repayment of debt is thepressing issue of the day,momentarily, but after all theconcern is how to live tomorrow.One way of life is endingand it’s not obvious whatthe new one is. Interview withProfessor Zygmunt Bauman,sociologist and philosopher.Professor Zygmunt Bauman,born in 1925 in Poznan, is asociologist, philosopher andessayist. One of the foundersof the concept of postmodernism,he is the author of manybooks on the modern worldand modern man. In March1968 he was expelled fromthe University of Warsaw andemigrated from Poland. Helectured at the universities ofTel Aviv and Haifa before beingmade Professor Emeritusof the University of Leeds. He lives in Leeds and is married with three daughters and six grandchildren.Do you have debts?- I’m a terrible customer for banks, probably thanks to a solid pre-war upbringing in Poznan. This is becauseI regularly pay back what I have on my credit card and the only debt I’ve incurred in my life, 40 years ago,was a mortgage. I paid this off within 20 years. In those days they gave you a loan only until your retirement;only later everything turned upside down!Are they still tempting you?- It stopped recently, but before they used to send a fair amount of junk mail. Day in, day out.Does your wife have debts?- We manage our household finances jointly.Has this crisis affected you personally?- I’ve never bought stocks, but Jasia, my wife, did - and when the stock market crashed she lost half of herlife savings.Did this affect you badly?- I told our children long ago: don’t count on inheritance! Your parents won’t burden you with debts, but willleave you nothing except the house and copyrights. And for us - how much longer do we have?I meant personal consequences for you, since thankfully I don’t feel this crisis at the moment.- Because it’s won’t happen until it gathers momentum. The consequences of the 1929 stock-market crashwhich caused the depression lingering throughout the 1930s only became clear three or four years later.Then the mass unemployment and bankruptcies started. The crisis is spreading like a wave. Shops willclose, which will bankrupt small companies, people will lose their jobs, their earnings, stop spending money304

and stop being the consumers who drive the economy…Do you have any recollection of the crisis in the 1930s?- My father attempted suicide. He threw himself off a bridge into the Warta but they fished him out. This ismy first childhood memory. The first and only, because you generally don’t remember things that happenedbefore you were six or seven. But I won’t forget that: rushing to the door, my father on a stretcher coveredin river weeds, dripping with water.Why did he jump?- Because he’d lost everything. Despite the fact that he was about as good at it as I would be, he was atthat time a shopkeeper. He went bankrupt and his creditors took everything. I remember them taking thefurniture from our flat. The bailiff was a frequent visitor. But when word got around Poznan that my fatherhad attempted suicide he was given work as a bookkeeper out of mercy. The money was lousy, he wastreated pretty poorly and humiliated, but somehow he managed to support us.Did he ever explain his attempted suicide?- Can you not understand suicidal people?Perhaps, but I would like to know how your father explained it to his children.- It was never spoken about, but I attempt to reconstruct it for myself. Back then there was the concept ofthe “man of the house”, which is considered old fashioned these days. He had a wife and two children, hehad to earn enough for their food, shoes, schooling. If he couldn’t, he was a nobody, a good-for-nothingcreature, and his life would have been worthless. If he was not in a position to protect his wife and childrenfrom hunger and humiliation, he was contemptible.Do your children have debts?- One daughter adheres to her father’s principles and doesn’t get into debt “for a better life”. However herarchitectural company, until now awash with orders, is in debt, but these are investment debts and she cancertainly repay them. My second daughter is an artist, and like all artists she lives from hand to mouth. I cansay with some certainty that she doesn’t live beyond her means. My third daughter is a normal academic,works at two universities and has just about enough money to get by from one monthly cheque to another.Did you ever ask your children whether they were in debt?- They’ve never been inclined towards getting into debt. It’s different with my grandchildren – they’re up totheir ears in debt. This is because they’re quick learners. Some time ago in England an obligatory subjectwas introduced into universities: living with debts. Who knows if it will be like this in Poland.You’re joking surely?- I hope so. When I arrived, the state supported students. There were no tuition fees but there were studygrants and student accommodation instead, you could even afford the books recommended by your teachers.Then all this was replaced by “cheap” student credit: study now and pay later. This is what I call theintroduction of “living with debts” training into the obligatory curriculum. The idea of student loans is basedon the same erroneous principle as was the mortgage loan policy. The latter assumed that house prices willconstantly go up, and first assumes that anyone with a diploma will get a lucrative job. Now it’s becomingapparent that it doesn’t have to be this way at all. This year’s British graduates, up to their ears in debt, mayfind themselves unemployed.So let’s talk about the crisis.- In England they don’t talk about a crisis, just about a depression. Do they talk about a crisis in Poland?Definitely.- This tends to be avoided here.What is the difference?- A depression is something which has its place in normal frame of things. Not that a train has derailed andoverturned – it just speeded up at first, then it slowed down, but it still stays on the rails.305

And what does crisis mean?- In a crisis people stand helplessly by and expect the worst. This is how it was in 1929. Each day banksclosed, they didn’t pay deposits, people lost their fortunes and their savings in the space of a single day.This isn’t the case today. The government gets hold of billions, I don’t know where from, but it gets it andgives it to banks. So apart from Lehman, no large bank which has raised the alarm over bankruptcy hasactually gone bankrupt. Admittedly there are more and more small bankruptcies, but these aren’t reportedin the press. With a few exceptions these are still bankruptcies of small workshops, shops, small factorieswith a couple of employees. It will take some time until, as the English say, many a pickle makes a mickle…And do you think about what is happening, is it a crisis or a depression?- I think that in some ways it’s a bigger crisis than in 1929.Why?- Because – to quote Soros – an extraordinarily big bubble has burst and it’s not easy to patch it up. Theattempts to “return to normality” adopted by politicians are not of great use. There probably is no way back,whereas it’s not clear what may replace the previous “normality”. If you look closely at what has happened,there is no historical precedent. “Normality” itself has been struck down and even the fairy-tale trillions ingovernment aid cannot get it back on its feet again.What does this crisis consist of?- In thought, just as in dancing, as the Polish proverb says, I know how to start only from the oven… Sobefore I reach the dance floor I’m going to ask you two questions. The first: do you know the word “hypotrichosis”?No.- And there’s nothing strange about that. That word appeared in vocabulary some three months ago anddenotes a new, recently discovered medical complaint: what happens if your eyelashes become weak, stopgrowing, and then fall out. The “discovery” of hypotrichosis is connected with what we’re talking about becausenews about this terrible disease, which every woman who cares about herself and her social positionshould declare war on, appeared at the same time as an advertisement for a large pharmaceutical companycalled Allergan. Does this name mean anything to you?It seems they make Botox.- Yes, so this company which has earned millions of dollars from Botox announced that it has discoveredan amazing weapon in the war against hypotrichosis – an ointment to be applied daily. In other words theycame across some substance in the laboratory and wondered how to make money from it. Maybe we manageto persuade women to smear it on their eyelids? To do this you need to scare them – with an insidiousdisease for example. Something which not too long ago was a ‘part of life’, something to live with – oneperson has weak eyelashes, someone else full-bodied – suddenly becomes an issue of choice betweenpathology and health. And if this is a disease and there is a medicine for it, then my duty is to treat myself,because if I don’t treat myself I’m committing a crime against myself, my friends, my family and humanity.And now my second question. Do you know the old Polish joke about Czech and Polish shoe trade repswho travel to Africa?No.- So they’re in Africa and they both send telegrams back to headquarters. The Polish one: no shoes needed,everyone walks around barefoot. The Czech: send 200 million pairs of shoes immediately, everyone walksaround barefoot.Not all that funny.- Perhaps, but this joke shows two possible approaches to the problem. The alleged Polish rep could becalled pre-modern and the alleged Czech modern. From borrowing the strategy of the Czech shoe industryrepresentative, the boom and unprecedented success of the modern capitalist economy followed. And nowto what we’re really talking about. Rosa Luxemburg – the name has been disowned today in Poland, but notbecause of her insightful economic theories – she published at the beginning of the 20th century a study of306

the accumulation of capital. In it she suggested that capitalism by its nature is doomed to commit suicidebecause it renders barren the fields which feed it. She was writing at the height of imperialist and colonialisttendencies, so naturally she considered this tendency towards suicide in the context of conquering landswith as yet pre-capitalist economies. With enormous simplification we may say that she reasoned as follows:in order to realize the labour-produced surplus value, capitalism needs non-capitalist economies.When the world is already conquered in full and capitalist economy becomes universal, capitalist accumulationwill reach its limit. This is somewhat like the image of a snake eating its own tail: at the beginning foodis plentiful, but the more the snake eats the more difficult it becomes to digest it. In the end there is nothingto eat and no-one to do the eating… This vision as such is still valid, though the colonialism with which Rosaidentified it by and large over. Capitalism learnt since to postpone the type of catastrophe Rosa Luxemburgpredicted.How?- Well, the fact that instead of seeking out virgin lands, capitalism invented something akin to a secondaryvirginity. It has learnt to manufacture virgin lands.Like this company Allergan and this condition, hypotrichosis.- Yes. The example with the barefoot Africans also aptly demonstrates what we’re talking about.Ok, but what does this have to do with the current crisis?- When a new product is invented, something which didn’t exist before, we start thinking: where are potentialcustomers? Without them our discovery doesn’t have any value. There aren’t any customers? Well then,let’s concoct something which will turn people into such customers.Do you have an example?- Bottled water. Until quite recently there were hardly any young persons walking the streets who wouldn’tbe carrying bottles of water. A few years before, they managed perfectly well without them. When she couldstill walk, Jasia and I were keen walkers, but it never entered our heads to take a bottle of water even on aten kilometer walk – after all, we were not walking through Sahara. Not these days, though! Nowadays goingout without a bottle of water, the same as without a mobile phone, is as if you’ve gone out without yourtrousers. Perhaps now, thanks to the shortage of cash, we are about seeing again young people walkingwithout clutching to a water bottle. But to go back to today’s crisis, this particular bubble; this time the ‘virginland’ were people taking no loans.Credit?- I remember when I was a child – and that was about 80 years ago – my mother sometimes sent me shoppingto Landberger Brothers, a German grocery. There was a wonderfully colorful print hanging there onthe wall. It depicted two men. At the top a portly elder gentleman lounged in an armchair, his cheeks ruddycheeks, attire elegant, the paunch large and the cigar in his mouth huge. The caption read “I never boughton credit”. Underneath him, in front of an open safe with only rats inside, a haggard figure was falling froma broken stool, in unshaven and in rags. The caption read “I lived on credit”. Max Weber thought that thedriving force of the fantastic and bewildering economic growth under capitalism was initially the protestantethic, warning against the pursuit of pleasure and luxury and insisting on delay of gratification. People savedinstead of spending their income and thereby, like it or not, inadvertently accumulated capital, which theycould use to build new factories, roads, railways and homes instead of wasting it on, still postponed bodilypleasures.If you borrow for an investment promising a profit greater than the interest you need to pay on the loan, youwere virtuous - and if the promise came true you were also a wise person. But heaven forbid if you get intodebt to overindulge yourself!Hence back then bankrupt people committing suicide?- Exactly. But some 20 or 30 years ago neo-liberalism – with borrowing/lending as its new virgin lands –swept away what was left of the protestant ethic. Persistently touted credit cards were introduced with theslogan “take the waiting out of wanting”. And the principle which motivated the birth of capitalism was turnedon its head.307

Where did this change come from?- From deregulation. At one time banks had to keep an amount in the safe which would be enough to coverthe loans they had granted. Barriers, prohibitions and protection abounded, and they all restricted the freedomof banks in seeking out and producing new virgin lands, including exploiting the revenue potential ofcredit and debt. In deregulating, neo-liberal governments did not realize what genie they were letting outof the bottle. But they let it loose and uncovered a new virgin land which no-one had cultivated before: “Leteveryone be a debtor”.But why exactly then?- First let me tell you something. There are two absolutely basic values without which a worthy and reasonablelife, human life itself, is inconceivable. One of these is freedom, the other is security. Security withoutfreedom is enslavement, and freedom without security is constant wandering through the unknown, unrelentinganxiety and fear. One value without the other is a nightmare and only together do they create adecent life. The snag is, Tomasz, that to reconcile them is extremely difficult. The more security we acquire,the more freedom we have to give up. And the more freedom we gain, the more we feel as juggling highclose to the ceiling, but with no safety net underneath. If we analyze the history of modern times from thispoint of view, then it would appear that the forms of social coexistence which have been discovered, tested,condemned and praised in history differ in the proposed ways of balancing freedom and security. Howeverit is my conviction that no society has found a golden mean. This is why at the end of the day we arrive attwo conclusions. The first: that such golden mean does not exist. The second: we are never going to stoplooking for it.Thankfully.- If it is as I say, then progress in the sense of making human life happier, cozier and fuller and at the sametime exciting is a lot more reminiscent of a pendulum than a straight line. The first 30 years after the warwere, so to speak, a period of yearning to be drawn close to each other, of people seeking refuge in a commonembrace. People wanted to feel safe after the upheaval of the war. This is one factor, not the only,because memories of pre-war times, of unemployment, depression, crisis, humiliation and wasted chancesalso added to the appeal of security. One more factor was that which Jürgen Habermas expounded inhis work “Legitimation Crisis”. At this time everyone, regardless of whether right- or left-wing, wanted tointroduce that which in Poland is called the protective state, in England the welfare state and in France theprovidence state, but which I prefer to call the social state. In a word almost everyone, regardless of theirviews, wanted to create a state in which people knew that if they lost their footing and fell then a helpinghand would pick them up again.So I understand that at this time the pendulum had swung towards security?- Yes, but please don’t forget that at this time it was a society of producers. Above all a person was aproducer of goods, not a consumer of them. The importance and power of nations was measured by thenumber of efficient, healthy, literate and well-clothed workers housed in tolerable conditions and with accessto medical care, because a large and fit labor force meant flourishing economy. And (please remember thatin those days there were no professional armies) it meant also powerful armed forces. Ford’s workers weredependent on Ford, without whom they would not have had the means to live. But just the same Ford wasdependent on his workers, because without them he wouldn’t have his wealth. He couldn’t pack up his factorylike today and unpack it, let’s say, in China. Dependence was mutual and as it was meant to last forever,it was like most marriages: there was a good deal of arguments and infighting, but also mutual awarenessthat there was a need to reach agreement, to compromise, to find a passable way to live together. And soFord had to reach an agreement with his employees and they with him. It was on these self-same conditionsof mutual need that investment in local medical services, in pensions, schools and in cheap housing wasseen by the capital owners as good investment. Because every spend penny pays for itself. A workforcetreated this way grows in quality, produces better things than elsewhere, and beats the competition.So what happened?- The pendulum swung as far as it could. The majority felt secure, and if we feel secure we stop understandingwhat all those limitations and sacrifices are for. Why those strict regulations controlling health and safetyat work? Why can’t I sack workers at will? Why the hell do I have to pay for those nurseries, healthcare servicesor cheap housing? The same happened on the side of the workers. They felt so secure that they forgot308

how at one time when they were taken ill they either recovered on their own or died, because there wasn’tmoney for a doctor. They began to ask: why do I have to go to the doctor I’m told to go to? Many pricked uptheir ears when Margaret Thatcher thundered “I want to go to the doctor when I want, and to one I want”.Why did people not want guarantees of security?- I was lecturing in Sweden just before the elections in which the Swedes dismissed empty handed theSocial Democrats who had been in government for 40 years. I spoke to Swedish intellectuals and tried inevery way possible to find out why they were unsympathetic towards the Social Democrat government. Iheard in reply that they couldn’t send their child to the school of their choosing, only to the one that hadbeen prescribed, and that this limited them. So I asked: imagine that the regulations change and you cando this. Would you take your child away from the school at which it studies now? No, not at all, it’s an excellentschool. Then what are you talking about? You don’t understand anything! I’m talking about freedom ofchoice! And this, Tomasz, is exactly how the pendulum suddenly began to swing the other way. Actually.this change in direction was to a significant extent an effect of the magnificent success of the welfare state.That state cared so well that people began to feel secure enough to kick away the ladder they had climbedup to reach this state of bliss.Just like children!- Today we’re reaching the other extreme: the limit of dreams about freedom. People are beginning to thinkabout someone taking a little of this freedom and in exchange giving a more reliable safety-net protectingagainst the darker effects of the tightrope-walking to which their freedom is condemned. Just as that oppositetendency years ago, today’s tendency stands above the division into left and right. Even vehementfollowers of neo-conservatism or – as you wish – neo-liberalism, are suddenly becoming advocates of thewelfare state.Do you think they turn to the government for loans?- These aren’t loans. This is surreptitious nationalization. For billions of dollars governments are buying theright to intervene and to interfere with issues which at one time were closely guarded by the self-interest ofcapitalists.So as I understand it the mood is more or less: we have debts, we can’t manage, do something for us.- What’s more: on our own, without your - you who govern us - help, we are unable to fix what we’ve broken.But this expression isn’t a result of the failure of neo-liberal economic or social policy. Completely the opposite,it’s an effect of its triumph!So we get back to the slogan: “Let everyone be a debtor”?- Yes, because this time it was the people who up to now have not got into debt and were not inclined tospend money which they couldn’t earn, who were recycled into a new ‘virgin land’ for capitalist exploitation.Because so many people are not used to take loans, print immediately a couple of million credit cards andten million flyers offering tempting bank loans. In centuries gone by, money lenders wanted their moneypaid back, and on time. Gangs operating in the 30s had armies of hired thugs to beat up those who didn’tpay back debts on time and murder those who didn’t pay at all. However for the last 20 years banks havedistanced themselves from debtors rushing to repay the money. What they want instead is that repayment ofinterest by people who are perpetually in debt be a constant source of rising revenues. A person who quicklyand in full repays his loan is useless. Worse, he portends lost revenue chance. What has happened now isthat this successive virgin land has been exhausted and rendered barren.Which means?- Do you know what a “sub-mortgage” is?I’ve heard something or other but I’m sure you will explain it better.- ‘Sub-mortgage’ is great American invention made 20 years ago. The point is that loans to buy flats andhouses can be granted also to poor people without any credit credentials on the assumption that if newcrowds of people seeking homes run onto the housing market, demand for houses will shot up, and so willhouse prices. The interest on loans which sub-mortgage clients are not able to repay will be covered by theincrease in the value of housing.309

How?- You say that you can’t repay your mortgage? We will increase then the mortgage loan! Your home is worthnow more than it was when you took out the first loan. The increased debt will be even harder to repay?Don’t worry. If the need arises, we’ll give you yet another loan. A variant of the infamous ‘pyramid selling’…But even a pyramid can also collapse if it’s built on fragile foundations. And that’s exactly what happened. Atthe beginning credit was pushed on everyone who qualified for it so only those who didn’t qualify were leftin the pool, and even they were turned into permanent debtors and the bubble burst with a great big bang.And with the bang came fear. Fear which constantly accompanies the cultivation of this credit. Fear whichuntil now had been held in check by ever-increasing credit opportunities.- The problem lies in the fact that today’s fear differs from the fears that beset our ancestors. Our forefathersknew that when children leave home wolves threaten them, that if there’s no cloud in the sky then there willbe a drought. They knew what to be afraid of. Today’s fears are diffuse and scattered. They loom and lingeroutside the field of our vision – they fly from one place to another in a flash. The most fearsome of fears isthe fear of the unknown. When I don’t know where from catastrophe may fall, I feel not only afraid but inaddition humiliated: I’m a fool, ignorant, naïve, I am vulnerable on all sides, I can’t fence for myself, I can’tmake myself ready for the fray. Which we unconsciously desire the most is to know the reasons for our fear.I understand that at the moment fear is focused on unemployment…- … in the UK it’s being reported that within a year there are supposed to be 3 million jobless. This is also thefirst time in 40 or 50 years when there will be an army of young unemployed with higher education.And what will happen then?- Before the banking crisis there was a murmur around the world that the price of food is increasing. Itwas written and said that it could lead to hunger riots. What kind of riots are these young intelligent peoplewithout jobs going to cause?Until now our value was, in a large part, based on our possessions. How will it be now?- I don’t know this yet, because Tomasz, as I’ve repeated may times, I’m not a prophet.Do you not have an impression that it is already happening today? That something other than what wepossess will become valued? People are increasingly beginning to talk about family, about health, abouteducation as about something which has real value.- There are still wider issues. For example the ecological situation. Very many people are seriously concernedabout this, but drive to ecology conventions and conferences in their own cars. In fact the first victimof the credit slump was the demand for ecologically friendly, and therefore more expensive, goods. But yes,you’re right, perhaps there will by a turning point in this sequence of routine thought and action. It won’t beeasy though. My grandson accumulated more than 40 thousand pounds worth of debt during his studies. Itwas instilled in him that he would repay the debt with high wages, and if needs be with more credit. Althoughhe hasn’t been affected by redundancies yet, both suggestions seem more and more nebulous to him. Toput it another way, he’s now in pretty dire straits.What do these dire straits consist of?- Of the fact that, like so many others, he’s in a situation of psychological instability.You can’t switch from one philosophy of life to another in the space of one night. It’s not easy to give upbelieving in something that is so deeply instilled in us. And it’s at exactly this moment that two philosophiesof life collide.Which two philosophies have collided?- One is to attempt to seek further credit, the second is to escape from credit, that is to tighten one’s belt. Toput it another way, the culture of the savings book and the culture of the credit card have met head on. Twoopposite cultures. In my youth you were taught to save for a flat, for a car. If you want a car, get a saving ac-310

count at PKO 1 ! If you want a flat, get another saving account at PKO! Then came the era of the credit card,when young people were lured and forced into debt. If you love your country, do stimulate the economy! Inother words, spend more money. If you don’t have any, then borrow and spend. These days young peopleare indoctrinated with such ideas. And then suddenly they come up against realities which until this pointhad only been associated with a long bygone era.What could the reaction be?- Psychologists call this condition cognitive dissonance and say that as it occurs it increases the likelihood ofirrational reactions. Evolution has created us as logically thinking creatures, so we feel helpless when confrontingtwo injunctions which cannot be reconciled. The ethologist Konrad Lorenz once conducted experimentswith a three-spined stickleback fish, a species in which the male builds a nest then leads a female intoit, she lays eggs, he fertilizes them, chases the female away and stands guard until the young are hatched.If another male stickleback appears near the nest, the guard assumes an attacking posture and the intruderflees. If a stickleback guarding a nest strays into the territory of another stickleback, they exchange reactions.Out of this game of chasing and fleeing the boundary line between two territories around the nests isdrawn. In Lorenz’s experiment two pairs of sticklebacks were placed in an aquarium whose volume was toosmall to accommodate territorial needs of two nests.So what happened?- The two males went mad. Literally. As they saw each other they buried their heads in the sandy bottom ofthe aquarium like ostriches, with their tails in the air. Irrational behaviour it was, because in no way could itcontribute to the solution of the dilemma. People are more clever, more inventive than stickleback, so theyrather take the solution of Aesop’s fox who could not reach the tasty grapes. Having determined that his legswere too short to climb up, he announced: oh well, never mind, they’re surely sour. And then, contemptuously,strolled off…The problem is that others must also agree that these grapes really are sour!- Tendencies to opt out of this or that part of freedom are growing. The state is guaranteeing loans andinvestments. It demands that creditors do not hurry sending bailiffs with eviction orders. It encounters resistance,but at the moment all agree that without some curbs there’s no way out.Everybody is supposed to agree and really do everything so that things can be like they were. Governmentspump billions into the system because they hope it’s going to reboot, and that people also somehow don’tthrow away their credit cards.- Because it’s not easy to rid yourself of old habits. But that these old habits are also outdated and ineffective,will become more and more obvious and harder to ignoreIn your books you say that modern people are so mobile and ready to change their way of life, but at themoment none of this is visible.- We’re attached to avoiding attachments... To turning backs to the past and starting anew. The snag atthe moment is that there are no agencies able to initiate and see through another start, another beginning.So perhaps it seems that it is worth growing attached to something, to have something constant.- We’re talking here about something more… In my opinion the novelty we will have to get accustomed towill be the rediscovery of the value of constancy. In recent years the imperative was to throw away the old inorder to buy something new. Why should I be bound to something or someone when day in, day out bettermobile phones, better computers, younger and more smartly dressed women appear? Why take a vow offaithfulness and tie my own hands? The main principle was: don’t close any option. Keep all your optionsopen, so that going back remains a possibility and nothing done has been done once and for all.It will be necessary to “disaccustom” ourselves from this - from a life as a sequence of throwaways. It willbe necessary to become accustomed, once more, to a life of collecting things and caring for what has beenalready collected.1 Editors note: PKO Bank Polski SA – a large Polish Bank, related to the national bank existing duringcommunist times311

Why did people not come to their own conclusions that they should cease with this incessant indebtedness?- I wouldn’t have asked that question, because it is an affront to the accused. After all the entire world washammering into their heads that way of living was just fine, it was cool. Don’t worry. When the GDP statisticsfell, the Prime Minister or Chancellor of the Exchequer went public to call on people to buy more. The formulawas that the country can get out of the depression if they manage to mobilize consumers. Patriotismmanifested itself in buying more. And buying more meant borrowing, because after all wages weren’t risingat the same rate as GDP. If all the economics experts, political experts, environmental experts, experts inthe art of competition – well-nigh all authorities, were urging you to spend, spend, spend, there was no roomfor doubts…But everyone knows at least one person who came a cropper and fell into a spiral of debt.- You know an old saying that if a thousand people rebel this is a revolution, and if one does then he’s a fool.It’s the same with this. Someone always comes a cropper.A loser.- A fool, a bungler, a lay about, an idler, there are a thousand ‘explanations’, but what’s interesting – all thoseexplanations point to the character faults of the victims and the failures. No mentioning of social causes…In today’s individualistic society we create problems together, but we are supposed to solve them individually,deploying individual ingenuity, perceptiveness, energy, diligence and our own privately held means. Inshort: if you’re successful it’s because you’re a good person, and if you fail it’s because you are bad. If youtake a goof look of yourself then surely you’ll find the fault and negligence which responsible for your defeat.How has the language of politicians changed in relation to the crisis?- At the moment they’ve stopped urging people to buy. They are promising help with repayments for therecent retail frenzy. They are promising that they won’t let harm come to the victims of the credit orgy, althoughat the moment they’re actually helping banks and not victims. Besides, it’s not enough for GordonBrown to promise the British that the politicians wouldn’t let them be evicted. The repayment of debt is thepressing issue of the moment, but a matter of real concern is how to live tomorrow. An Englishman has awallet full of credit cards and is used to the fact that if he wants something he can have it now. The snag isthat in the future he won’t be able to continue that habit. One way of life is now ending and it’s not obviouswhat the new one night be.Which means?- Imagine if suddenly some global virus destroyed all television sets.A tragedy!- Well exactly. No one would know what to do in the evenings, a new means for filling free time would needto be worked out. Perhaps it would be necessary to re-learn how the family may stand around a harpsichord,one working hard on the fiddle, a second singing, a third blowing a flute? And perhaps – who knows – evenreturn to the custom of sitting to dinner around the family table to jointly consumed jointly cooked food, insteadof each one grabbing a beef burger from a wrapper brought in from a fast food outlet, locking himselfin his room and disappearing on the internet.A very optimistic prediction.Not a prediction, just musing. All the time you push me in a direction I don’t want to go in. I’m not a prophet,I don’t make predictions.Have you gone through any crisis?- You ask me? I do not even mention Jasia, because at first I was shot at by Germans to shoot at them fora change afterwards, while she spent years a mere step away from gas chambers. But already together,we’ve survived two emigrations and each time it was necessary to learn from scratch how to live. The firstten years in England were terribly difficult for me. When a new head comes to a department there’s alwaysanxiety among the ‘old hands’: they don’t know what to expect from the stranger. I however was not anordinary stranger, but a stranger multiplied: I hadn’t just come from another university, but from anotherculture, language, tradition. Many reasons to make my new colleagues suspicious. I had an impression thatwhen I said spade, they suspected that I meant fork. And this suspicion was mutual. In addition to this I had312

a break from writing. I did not expect ever again to be published in Poland, where for twenty or so yearseven mentioning my name in print was prohibited. And I did not see myself as yet fluent enough in Englishto dare to write. In many respects this was a crisis situation, and not just at work. At home there were as wellmatters aplenty to worry about – many reasons for sleepless nights.For what reason for example did you not sleep?- The Registrar of the Leeds University’ took it upon himself to introduce me to the bolts and nuts of my newlife in England. I asked him where I could rent a flat. He rolled his eyes and told me that firstly one doesn’trent here, but buys, and secondly not a flat but a house. I almost fainted. I’m supposed to buy a house? Idon’t have a penny to my name, a piece of furniture or a bed sheet, but instead I have two daughters withmany years’ education before them, I can’t dream to manage without falling in debt… How and when am Isupposed to repay it? We bought the cheapest house on the market.Why did your crisis last as many as ten years?- It took that long to adapt to a new way of life. Or rather to dissociate myself from the old one.What price did you pay?- I never thought about it.How did you benefit from it?- At the end I was able to cobble together a new identity.Perhaps teaching people how to live in the new conditions is the new virgin land, the new Eldorado whichis waiting to be discovered.- For some time now there’s been talk of a ‘counseling boom’. We’ve never been better educated, but whenit comes to the things a normal person used to organize on his own, now we need advisors. From cradleto grave.And what now?- Amongst contemporary sociologists there has been until recently an opinion that the current problem isnot the dearth, but its opposite – the profusion of possible identities, ways of living and life-enriching goods;the flipside is that whatever you achieve you are not completely satisfied, there’s always something betterwaiting out there. Hence a constant anguish. We never get to a point when we could say to ourselves: I’vemade it, now I can sit down, have a smoke and rest – there is nothing more that needs to be done. Thatanguish might now be over… Excess comes to an end.313

Thanks to all the inspiring people that contributed to the Civil Society ForumSetting the project frameworkAdvisorsDarina Malova, SVKIoana Avadani, ROIstvan Rev, HUMilla Mineva, BGTomasz Kitlinski, PLProgram CommitteeHeike MacKerron, Board Member, GERIstvan Rev, HUJiri Pehe, Board Member, CZMichael Edwards, Board Member, USWawrzyniec Smoczynski, PLWritingCountry AuthorsAgnieszka Graff, PLAnna Krasteva, BGCodru Vrabie, ROFerenc Miszlivetz, HUJiri Kopal, CZJuraj Mesik, SVKPrimoz Sporar, SIThematic AuthorsChristopher Worman, ROMaria Rogaczewska, PLMilena Leneva, BGMilla Mineva, BGMonika Balint, HUSimon Delakorda, SITomasz Kitlinski, PLAdditional reflectionsChristmas piece, Georgi Gospodinov, BGInterview of Zygmunt Bauman by Tomasz Kwasniewski,Gazeta Wyborcza, PLSpeech to the CEE Trust board, Rafal Pankowski, PLText written by Andrzej Waskiewicz, PLFocusGroup facilitatorsJan Jakub Wygnanski, PLKrisztina Arato, HUMarcel David Zajac, SVKMihaela-Beatrice Lambru, ROPetia Kabakchieva, BGContest JuryIva Grobin, SIIva Roudnikova, BG,Marta Bialek, PL,Designing the programProducersSession 1 - Shipyard Foundation, PLSession 2 - Ioana Avadani, ROBreakout discussions - Mariana Milosheva, BGSIC CEETransitions Online, CZ: Jeremy Druker, Kristy Ironside, DanMcquillan, Dan Braghis, Gleb KanunnikauAdditional assistance with program contentWarm-up discussion - Tomek Kitlinski, PLOpening program - Open Society Foundation, SVKAfter dinner discussion - Pavol Demes, SVKSpeakers and ModeratorsAlena Panikova, SVKAlexander Smolar, PLAnna Daucova, SVKAnna Giza-Poleczsztuk, PLAssya Kavrukova, BGCodru VraibieDan McQuillan, UK, RODarius Groza, RODusan Ondrusek, SVKEva Varga, HUGiorgiu Ene, ROIgor Janke, PLIoana Avadani, ROIvan Juras, SVKIvan Krastev, BGJiri Pehe, CZJulian Popov, BGKristina Rygman, ROKrzysztof Czyzewski, PLMartin Butora, SVKMichael Edwards, UK/USMilla Mineva, BGNilda Bullein, HUPavlina Kalouskova, CZPavol Demes, SVKPeter Golias, SVKPetko Georgiev, BGRayna Gavrilova, BGSimon Delakorda, SISlawomir Sierakowski, PLTomek Kitlinski, PLVida Organec-Wagner, SIWawrzyniec Smoczynski, PL

Thanks to all the inspiring people that contributed to the Civil Society ForumTechnical and practical assistanceAdditional visual clipseFTe, PLIoana Avadani, ROPawel LeszkowiczSlovak Film InstituteStudie Indie, ROVoices, SVKMedia partners contest and/orlivestreamingStreetPoll reportersPlamena Foteva & Tzvetelina Stoyanova, BGJana Milojevicova, CZPeter Hoffmann & Zsofia Zsemlye, HUJoanna Kozera, PLInre Studio, RONorber Maur , SVKStudio 12, SIResearch:Jan Herbst, PLDesign and editing of printed materialAgata Muszalska & Dominika Raczkowska, PLIvan Hristov, BGRose Griffin, UKWebsite/livestreaming:Jordan Dimov, BGMatej Delakorda, SILogisticsFair-play alliance, SVKManna Catering, SVKMatej Cervenka & Filip Gelacik, Avance event agency,SVKTravelida travel agency, PLe-PublicationPhotosKatarzyna Darkowska, PL, Irina Cretu, RO &Pavol Demes, SVK (Thanks!)Flag icons free downloadable by Vathanx (Thank you!)Textsp. 121-122 published as an article by orangelog.euwhich produced an online magazine on the ForumEditing and design assistanceToni MickiewiczCEE Trust TeamIrina Lupu, Plamena Foteva, Djema Baruh, Åza Swedin,Lidia Kolucka-Zuk, Rayna Gavrilova, Dolores Neagoe,Jana Milojevicova, Ewa Blawdziewicz, Elzbieta Morawskaand Katarzyna Darkowska.This publication is published under a Creative Commonslicense, You must attribute the work to the CEE Trust, youmay not use this work for commercial purposesText preparation, design and project coordinationÅza Swedin

The Trust for Civil Society in Central & Eastern Europe (CEE Trust) waslaunched in January 2001 as an independent public charity organizationwith endowment support from a group of private grant-making foundationsincluding Atlantic Philanthropies, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation,Ford Foundation, German Marshall Fund of the United States, Open SocietyInstitute, and Rockefeller Brothers.The Trust was created as a mechanism for helping the transition fromdonor assisted to independent, active and viable organizations and networks,working for the public good. It will distribute 75 million USD until theend of 2012 as financial support to initiatives and organizations.The mission of the CEE Trust is to support the long term sustainable developmentof civil society and non-governmental organizations in sevencountries in Central and Eastern Europe: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.The definition of civil society of the CEE Trust is based on a broader understanding,including registered non-profit non-governmental organizations(NGOs), but also other formally and informally organized citizens,groups, coalitions, movements, representatives of the media and educationalinstitutions, working for the advancement of the public good.The CEE Trust’s task is to encourage them to become more efficient andsustainable, to expand their constituencies and consider the future oftheir work in times when global, European, and local concerns definethe environment.